|
|
| Misplaced Priorities |
|
Posted by FoM on August 23, 2001 at 21:24:00 PT Editorial Source: Washington Post 
Attorney General John Ashcroft responded to the Justice Department's latest figures on drug prosecutions by claiming that they prove that "federal law enforcement is targeted effectively at convicting major drug traffickers and punishing them with longer lockups in prison." The data the department released show almost the opposite: that the nation's tough drug sentencing regime is, to a great extent, being used to lock up comparatively low-level offenders who could easily be prosecuted in state courts. The data, far from affirming that the federal drug effort is a success, raise real questions about the federal government's prosecutorial priorities in the war on drugs. The growth in federal drug prosecutions over the past two decades has been prodigious. Between 1984 and 1999, the number of suspects referred to federal prosecutors in drug matters tripled, to more than 38,000 -- of whom 84 percent were prosecuted. Drug cases during that time went from 18 percent of the total federal criminal caseload to 32 percent. According to other department data, drug convicts now account for 57 percent of the federal inmate population, in contrast to only 21 percent of the much larger state population. This growth is not, as the attorney general suggests, largely the result of locking up major traffickers. In 1999 only about one-half of 1 percent of criminal referrals were for the most serious drug cases -- those involving what are known as continuing criminal enterprises -- and these led to only 116 actual prison sentences. Two-thirds of drug defendants could not afford to hire their own lawyers, a good indication that they were hardly high-level traffickers. In fact, 38 percent of all convictions involved quantities of drugs small enough that no mandatory minimum sentence could be applied, while only 3 percent resulted in mandatory minimum sentences of longer than 10 years in prison. In 1997 the department reports, 14 percent of federal drug inmates were in prison for drug use, and 42 percent were serving time for dealing -- either at the street level or above. It is simply wrong to argue that the focus of the federal drug effort has been kingpins. Rather, in many jurisdictions, federal drug investigations and prosecutions seem to run parallel with efforts of state prosecutors and local police forces. Another striking feature of the department's data is the disproportionate role that marijuana seems to be playing in federal drug prosecution. Marijuana is hardly the most dangerous of drugs. Yet 31 percent of federal drug referrals involved marijuana offenses in 1999, more than for any other type of drug. And though these referrals ultimately produced shorter sentences, they were actually more likely to result in prosecutions than cases involving powder cocaine, crack cocaine or heroine. Marijuana cases all by themselves now account for a measurable percentage of the entire federal criminal caseload. This hardly seems rational. The unique federal role in the drug war ought to be the prosecution of major interstate trafficking cases involving the most dangerous people -- and the drugs that constitute the greatest threat to the national health. Source: Washington Post (DC) Related Articles & Web Site: Bureau of Justice Statistics Drug Cases, Sentences Up Sharply Since 1984 Justice: Federal Drug Charges Rise Crime Rate Dropped, but Sentencing Grew Tougher Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #5 posted by Doug on August 24, 2001 at 10:00:54 PT |
| My God, what has the world come to? Here is a reasonable editorial on the Drug War in the Washington Post. Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave. The situation is truly grave for the Drug Warriors if this newspaper in their home town is stooping to telling the truth like this. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #4 posted by Dan B on August 24, 2001 at 06:14:19 PT:
|
| Checking out the DEA's list of most-wanted "fugitives" reads like a game of "find the white guys." Check it out: http://www.dea.gov/fugitives/fuglist.htm I noted that all of the fugitives from Texas are either Hispanic of African-American. All of them. No exceptions. Period. After perusing this site, I wonder how much more evidence the DEA can give us in support of the claim that they currently have a racial profiling policy in effect. A while back, Rick Day visited a coffee shop in Lubbock, Texas--I believe the first such appearance in this town by a representative from NORML (Day founded NORML Texas). For me, one thing he said stands out more than anything else. Roughly paraphrased, he began to give statistics about the racism inherent in the drug war, then said that he sometimes hesitates to give that information because there are too many people in this state who think that's a good thing! The man has balls of brass for saying that in front of two news cameras (half of the television news establishment in Lubbock--three fourths if you consider that the CBS station that was present shares stories with its partner, the ABC affiliate), as well as about fifty other Texans, including a couple of newspaper reporters and one lone voice of dissention--a representative from MADD who knew nothing about which he was talking. But he's right, and that's why he can get away with it. Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on August 24, 2001 at 04:22:40 PT:
|
| "Another striking feature of the department's data is the disproportionate role that marijuana seems to be playing in federal drug prosecution. Marijuana is hardly the most dangerous of drugs. (Emphasis mine -k.) Yet 31 percent of federal drug referrals involved marijuana offenses in 1999, more than for any other type of drug. And though these referrals ultimately produced shorter sentences, they were actually more likely to result in prosecutions than cases involving powder cocaine, crack cocaine or heroine. (Emphasis mine, again -k.) Incredible. A voice of sanity emanating from The Washington Post. Maybe some of their 'journalists' have been sticking their heads in here again, no? Cops have admitted, straight up, that they prefer to go after cannabis users because we're generally a peaceful bunch. Our chosen intoxicant is hard to conceal. It requires a lot of time, resources and energy to bring in a decent crop. Which demands that the would-be 'drug-lord' (Puh-lease! if they want drug-lords, let them trace the multimillion dollar daily money transfers from banks here to overseas and back!) to be unable to move far from your base of operations, rather than be mobile. In short, in every sense of the word, we're sitting ducks. Easy pickings. And they know it...which is why it is reflected in the figures. While a river of filthy white poison flows around their very feet, undermining all they proclaim to hold sacred. And they can't stop it. So, to look like they're doing something, they come after us. Typical. So typical [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by p4me on August 24, 2001 at 01:03:22 PT:
|
| I like the term used by PCT in the comment #1, "Another Drug Bizarre." Another politician that needs to be put out to pasture. Thank goodness for the internet so that honest Americans can communicate. To copy somebody else from a few days ago, "Figures lie and liars figure." [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by DCP on August 23, 2001 at 23:11:28 PT |
| Ashcroft has been in office only a matter of days and already we are witness to his lies. He must have had practice in his previous job. And for a wonder, the Washington Post blew him out of the water with the following: "The data, far from affirming that the federal drug effort is a success, raise real questions about the federal government's prosecutorial priorities in the war on drugs." Wonderful! There must be many snickers inside the beltway, and some pouting too. Another Drug Bizarre! [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |