Critics argue for changes in mandatory sentencing laws involving cocaine.

A national think tank has studied them, a government commission wants to change them, and the U.S. Supreme Court won't touch them.

Mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers have again garnered the attention of lawyers, policymakers, and judges who have debated the wisdom of these sentencing laws since they were popularized in the 1980s during the Reagan administration's so-called war on drugs.

Critics contend the laws stifle judges' discretion and are racially biased when comparing offenses involving powder cocaine and its cheaper, potent derivative -- crack. Supporters argue that the laws deter drug use and keep traffickers from plying their trade -- at least while they're locked up.

Rand, which analyzed the effects of federally mandated sentences in a recent study, said the laws do little to cut drug-related crime or demand for cocaine, the nation's "most problematic" drug. (Jonathan P. Caulkins et al., Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences: Throwing Away the Key or the Taxpayers' Money?, Drug Policy Research Center, Rand (1997).)

"We would make greater drug control progress by sentencing more dealers to standard prison terms than by sentencing fewer dealers to longer, mandatory terms," said Jonathan Caulkins, lead researcher at Rand's Drug Policy Research Center.

The Rand study found that spending an additional $1 million on longer prison sentences for dealers would reduce the nation's total consumption of cocaine by less than 29 pounds a year. Rand estimates total consumption at about 300 tons a year.

Spending the same amount on arresting, prosecuting and sentencing more dealers to discretionary prison terms -- as well as seizing their assets -- would reduce consumption by 60 pounds.

And an extra $1 million spent on treating heavy cocaine users would cut consumption by 220 pounds, Rand found.

"Mandatory minimum sentences are not justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness [for] reducing cocaine consumption or drug-related crime," the study said. "Long sentences for serious crimes have intuitive appeal [but they are] expensive and cocaine control resources are limited."

Rand is a nonprofit organization based in Santa Monica, California, that uses research and statistical analysis to study public policy issues.

The organization's report comes only a few weeks after the U.S. Sentencing Commission's release of recommendations seeking changes to the federal mandatory sentencing laws. (U.S. Sentencing Commission, Special Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy, Apr. 29,1997.)

The commission wants Congress to narrow the sentencing disparity between crimes involving powder and crack cocaine. Two years ago, the commission recommended that the disparity be eliminated altogether, but Congress insisted that the penalty for crack trafficking exceed that for powder cocaine.

Under current law, defendants are sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison for trafficking in at least 500 grams of powder cocaine and 5 years for trafficking in 5 grams of crack. The commission recommended the same length of sentences for trafficking in 125 to 375 grams of powder cocaine and 25 to 75 grams of crack.

The most publicized concern over the disparity in mandatory sentences for crack and powder cocaine is the notion that they are inherently racially biased. Civil rights groups, several African American political leaders, and other critics of the laws say that crack, which is inexpensive and sometimes associated with violent crime, is used more often by African Americans living in inner-city neighborhoods. Powder cocaine is more expensive and most likely to be found among affluent users.

The commission did not broach the topic of race and instead founded its argument for parity in sentencing on basic drug control theory.

"Although research and public policy may support somewhat higher penalties for crack than for powder cocaine, [the current threshold amounts] cannot be justified," the commission wrote. "Five grams of crack cocaine is indicative of a retail or street-level dealer rather than a mid-level dealer. The commission concludes that the 5 gram trigger should be increased to better target mid-level dealers."

In mid-April the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case on whether mandatory minimum prison sentences discriminate against minorities.

The Court, without comment, allowed a District of Columbia man's 10-year prison sentence for crack cocaine trafficking to stand, despite his challenge that African Americans receive unequal treatment under the federal sentencing laws. (Edwards v. United States, No. 96-1492, cert. denied (U.S. Apr. 14, 1997).)

Lawyers for the appellant, Duane Edwards, had unsuccessfully argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the crack cocaine sentencing laws unfairly target young, poor, urban African American men.

To obtain a copy of the Rand study, contact the Rand Distribution Department at [phone] and ask for Document No. MR-827-DPRC. The cost is $15 plus shipping and handling. The U.S. Sentencing Commission's report is available on the Internet at http://www.ussc.gov or by calling [phone].