Bill Overview
Title: SMART Cocaine Sentencing Act
Description: This bill reduces the federal sentencing disparity between drug offenses involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Currently, different threshold amounts of crack cocaine and powder cocaine (e.g., 28 grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powder cocaine) trigger the same statutory criminal penalties. This bill reduces the federal sentencing disparity by altering the threshold amounts of crack cocaine and powder cocaine that trigger statutory criminal penalties. Specifically, the bill increases the threshold amounts of crack cocaine (e.g., from 28 to 160 grams) and decreases the threshold amounts of powder cocaine (e.g., from 500 to 400 grams) that trigger statutory criminal penalties. The changes may apply retroactively, but only if the Department of Justice (DOJ) certifies that the sentence of a defendant should be reduced. The bill requires DOJ to review and report on various data related to crack cocaine and powder cocaine, including individual dosage amounts, addictiveness, and associated violence. Additionally, the U.S. Sentencing Commission must report publicly on cocaine offenses and offenders, including trends in cocaine trafficking patterns, price, and use; the interaction of state penalties with federal prosecutorial decisions; and federal case law developments related to federal cocaine sentencing.
Sponsors: Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in cocaine-related offenses
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill targets sentencing for both crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, impacting those currently incarcerated or facing future sentences based on these drug types.
- There is retroactive potential for reducing sentences for those currently incarcerated for crack cocaine offenses if deemed appropriate by DOJ review.
- Crack cocaine offenses have historically impacted minority communities, specifically African-American populations, disproportionately in the U.S.
- The changes in sentencing thresholds could also impact future offenders and individuals involved in cocaine trafficking and distribution.
- Data collection requirements will also impact how offenses are monitored and potentially influence future legislation or sentencing guidelines globally.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a very specific population that includes current federal inmates serving sentences for cocaine-related offenses and potential future offenders.
- Given the historical disparities in sentencing for crack versus powder cocaine, individuals who may benefit the most are likely those who are currently serving disproportionately long sentences for crack cocaine offenses.
- The budget restrictions imply that not every case can be reviewed retroactively, nor can every individual currently jailed for crack cocaine be considered for sentence reduction simultaneously.
- The span of impact extends over 10 years, allowing for gradual changes and monitoring of trafficking and usage patterns, which are also influenced by societal shifts and potential adjustments in state-level policy.
- Because the policy also adjusts thresholds for powder cocaine, it could potentially influence prosecution and plea bargains for a broader set of individuals involved in cocaine distribution.
- Data from the DOJ and U.S. Sentencing Commission may shift public perspectives, influencing both policy and personal views on drug legislation.
Simulated Interviews
currently incarcerated (Chicago, IL)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could really help people like me who were given harsh sentences.
- If my sentence could be reconsidered, it would mean I might get to see my children grow up after all.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
public defender (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is definitely a step in the right direction, but it's just one part of a much larger issue of drug sentencing reform.
- More needs to be done to ensure equitable treatment across all drug offenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
community activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy is a positive move, it needs more visibility and support to ensure that DOJ handles retroactive cases fairly.
- There's hope that this will lead to broader reforms across the system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
judge (New York, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The adjusted thresholds make sense given the evolving understanding of drug offence impacts.
- We might see a fairer application of justice, but it will require oversight to ensure consistency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
recent college graduate (Dallas, TX)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might encourage more people to get involved in reform efforts, seeing tangible changes happen.
- It's encouraging to see some effort to address past injustices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
rehabilitated former offender (Miami, FL)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This brings a little hope to those caught in the system for too long.
- I'd like to see more support for those re-entering society; changing sentences is just the beginning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
policy analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation could lay the groundwork for future reforms, but its success hinges on efficient and thoughtful implementation.
- It's an important balancing act between punishing crime and righting previous judicial errors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
social worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic this could reduce some family separations due to incarceration, especially for minor drug offenses.
- But it needs to be paired with broader social support policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's promising to see efforts to fix sentencing discrepancies; this could inspire other necessary reforms.
- I trust that continued oversight and data collection will guide future changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
advocate for minority rights (Detroit, MI)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy change is a win for justice and fairness, particularly for African-American communities targeted by severe sentencing laws.
- We need to remain vigilant in ensuring it's consistently applied.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $5500000)
Year 3: $3500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $4500000)
Year 10: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $4000000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Key Considerations
- The potential reduction of the prison population may relieve some pressures on the federal prison system, resulting in savings.
- There will be an upfront cost related to reviewing cases for retroactive adjustments, but future costs may decrease as prison populations diminish.
- Social considerations include the historical impact of disparate sentencing on specific communities, notably minorities.