Justice and the Color Line

What would you say about a U.S. law that leads to an incarceration rate that tips so heavily against one minority group that that single group comes to represent 85 percent of the total incarcerated under that law? What would you say if that minority group, African Americans, represents only 12 percent of the total population? What if you discovered that a shocking 96 percent of those prosecuted under that law were either black or Latino?

That law would be called draconian. It would be called racist. And those targeted by the law would be called people whose rights were violated.

Under federal sentencing laws passed in the mid-1980s, crack-cocaine offenders – mostly African American and Latino – have received harsher sentences than individuals convicted of powder-cocaine offenses. Under these same laws, standards for penalizing crack-cocaine offenses are 100 times more severe than they are for powder-cocaine offenses, and federal judges have no leeway to impose lighter sentences.

In a tremendous victory for racial justice, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Watson v. United States on December 10, 2007, that judges can ignore unjust sentencing guidelines that recommend harsher sentences for crack-cocaine offenses. Quickly following that decision, the United States Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to lighten punishments retroactively for crimes related to crack cocaine – calling the disparities “unwarranted.” These decisions should affect some 19,500 federal inmates.

Especially interesting for those in the human rights community, the Supreme Court issued its decision on International Human Rights Day. Dovetailing on my earlier blog post ("Human Rights Day As a Reminder"), I invite you to see this decision as a step towards resolving a pressing human rights issue in the United States – violations of racial antidiscrimination standards and equal rights.