June 30th 2011, the U.S. Sentencing Commission granted retroactivity to the Fairness in Sentencing Act.

U.S. Sentencing Commission received over 40,000 letters -- people mostly from people like you!

Media coverage of retroactivity and FSA

Witness statements before the U.S. Sentencing Commission on June 1st.

Read the Commission's Analysis of the Impact of the Fair Sentencing Act if made retroactive (2011).

Sign here!


Read the News about this action!
Read the Global Commission's Report

News Channel 5 out of Middle Tennessee reports: Policing for Profit

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A major NewsChannel 5 investigation has uncovered serious questions about Tennessee's war on drugs. Among the questions: are some police agencies more concerned about making money off the drugs, than stopping them?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER SPEAKS BEFORE THE U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION

Published 06/01/2011

Madam Chair and members of the Sentencing Commission:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Along with my colleagues, United States Attorney Stephanie Rose and Acting Bureau of Prisons Director Tom Kane, I am here to discuss our shared goals – and this Administration’s ongoing efforts – to ensure the firm and fair administration of justice in our nation’s sentencing policies.

Thanks to the extraordinary work of this Commission – and the contributions of policymakers and prosecutors, advocates and researchers, law enforcement officers and Administration officials, as well as Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle – in recent months, significant, long-overdue progress has been made to improve the strength and integrity of our federal sentencing system.

As we can all agree, our sentencing policies must be tough, predictable and aimed at: enhancing public safety; reducing crime; reducing recidivism; eliminating unwarranted disparities; minimizing the negative, often devastating effects of illegal drugs; and inspiring trust and confidence in the fairness of our criminal justice system.

Last August marked an historic step forward in achieving each of these goals – when President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law. This new law not only reduced the inappropriate 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses – a disparity that this Commission itself found to be unjustifiable and repeatedly recommended should be amended – it also strengthens the hand of law enforcement and includes tough new criminal penalties to mitigate the risks posed by our nation’s most serious, and most destructive, drug traffickers and violent offenders. Because of the Fair Sentencing Act, our nation is now closer to fulfilling its fundamental, and founding, promise of equal treatment under law.

But I am here today because I believe – and the Administration’s viewpoint is that - we have more to do. Although the Fair Sentencing Act is being successfully implemented nationwide, achieving its central goals of promoting public safety and public trust – and ensuring a fair and effective criminal justice system – requires the retroactive application of its guideline amendment.
Of course, in considering retroactive application of this amendment, protecting the American people is – and will remain – the Administration’s top priority. President Obama and I, along with leaders across the Administration, understand how illegal drugs – including crack – ravage communities. Crack offenders – especially violent ones – should be punished. And the Justice Department will make every effort to prosecute them. However, as years of experience and study have shown, there is simply no just or logical reason why their punishments should be dramatically more severe than those of other cocaine offenders – a position that Congress overwhelmingly supported with the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act.

The Commission’s Sentencing Guidelines already make clear that retroactivity of the guideline amendment is inappropriate when its application poses a significant risk to public safety – and the Administration agrees. In fact, we believe certain dangerous offenders – including those who have possessed or used weapons in committing their crimes and those who have significant criminal histories – should be categorically prohibited from receiving the benefits of retroactivity, a step beyond current Commission policy.

The Administration’s suggested approach to retroactivity of the amendment recognizes Congressional intent in the Fair Sentencing Act to differentiate dangerous and violent drug offenders and ensure that their sentences are no less than those originally set. However, we believe that the imprisonment terms of those sentenced pursuant to the old statutory disparity – who are not considered dangerous drug offenders – should be alleviated to the extent possible to reflect the new law.

As a federal prosecutor and as Attorney General – and as a former judge, United States Attorney, and Deputy Attorney General – this issue is deeply personal to me. While serving on the bench, here in Washington, D.C., in the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s, I saw the devastating effects of illegal drugs on families, communities, and individual lives. I know what it is like to sentence young offenders to long prison terms, and I did so to protect the public from those who were serious threats and who had engaged in violence. However, throughout my tenure as this city’s U.S. Attorney, I also saw that our federal crack sentencing laws did not achieve that result. Our drug laws were not perceived as fair and our law enforcement efforts suffered as a result. That is why it was a special privilege for me to stand with President Obama when he signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law. And that is why I feel compelled to be here in person today, to join my colleagues in calling for the retroactive application of the guideline amendment.

I recognize that some disagree with this approach. We have heard this before. In 2008, after the Commission decided to apply retroactively an amendment that reduced the base offense level for crack by two levels – known as the “crack minus two” amendment – some, including several within the Justice Department, predicted that such a move would cause a dramatic rise in crime rates. However, as a study released by the Commission just yesterday shows, those whose sentences were reduced after that amendment was applied retroactively actually had a slightly lower rate of recidivism than the study’s control group.

Three years ago, the Bureau of Prisons, Marshals Service, federal prosecutors, judges, probation officers, and others stepped up and did the necessary work to ensure the successful and effective retroactive application of the “crack minus two” amendment. Today – despite growing demands and limited budgets – my colleagues across the Department of Justice and the criminal justice community stand ready to do that which is necessary to make our sentencing system fairer and more effective. And, once again, we are relying on the Commission to lead the way.
Recently, some have suggested that – since the Fair Sentencing Act contains no specific provision regarding retroactivity – it is beyond the role of the Sentencing Commission to make the guideline amendment retroactive without direction from the Legislative Branch. We disagree with this position. Based on the Commission’s authorizing statute, we believe that the Commission would be well within its authority to make the Fair Sentencing Act amendment retroactive along the lines that we suggest.

Madam Chair, and distinguished members of the Commission, it is time to honor, not only the letter of this law, but also the spirit of its intent. Our nation’s ability to do so rests in your hands.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I look forward to continuing to work with each of you – and with leaders across Congress and the Administration – to strengthen federal sentencing policy, and to ensure that our nation’s criminal justice system serves as a model of effectiveness and fairness.

I’m now pleased to turn this over to my colleagues, U.S. Attorney Rose and Acting Director Kane. They will elaborate further on the Administration’s position and also will be available to answer questions.

Thank you.

The US Sentencing Commission has extended invitation for public comments on retroactivity of the Fairness in Sentencing Act until June, 1, 2011. The Commission wants to hear from you regarding crack cocaine sentencing retroactivity. Consider sending the letter we suggested Razor Wire readers personalize for the Commission.

Read the Commission's Analysis of the Impact of the Fair Sentencing Act if made retroactive (2011).

The New York Times is covering what the report describes as a "Judicial Renaissance." Read, Judges See Sentencing Injustice, but the Calendar Disagrees.

Washington Post has a February 2011 Editorial in support of crack retroactivity.

The Sentencing Project has a more information about the crack cocaine disparity and changes in 2010 law.

The Federal office of public defender's website has legal resources on recent cocaine sentencing changes.

Families Against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing - FAMM has a resources guide on new crack law and retroactivity.

March 23, 2011 -- The Atlantic

Glenna Hall, a retired Washington State superior court judge writes "For me, sentencing, particularly for drug crimes, was in many ways the hardest part of my work as a judge. Not because the decisions or the work were hard (though of course they were), but because, given the restrictive nature of the sentencing guidelines in Washington, I had virtually no discretion or authority to consider anything about the human being standing before me. I could consider only the nature of the crime, expressed in a number, and the number and kinds of offenses the defendant had committed, also expressed in a number. From those two quantified factors was derived a quite narrow range I was required to use in imposing a sentence. Except in a minuscule set of circumstances, I could only work within that range. The temptation not to think at all but rather to pick a number in the middle was strong."

Read the entire article here

Wall Street Journal reviews documents

"At the Justice Department, officials are considering whether to shorten some federal prison terms and have already shut down a program that successfully encouraged fugitive criminals to turn themselves in."

Devlln Barrett of the Wall Street Journal reported Jan 27, 2011 that documents released to the WSJ show that 4,000 federal prisoners would immediately qualify for release.

"—Increasing the amount of time deducted from prison terms for good behavior, which would immediately qualify some 4,000 federal convicts for release, and another 4,000 over the next 10 years." Read the article and commentary at the Wall St. Journal.

Details have not yet emerged, and the budget adjusting 'as we speak.' We urge November members to contact the White House urging president Obama to do more to restore justice to the federal sentencing system.

Ten years for $31 of marijuana - March 2012

Patricia Marilyn Spottedcrow, a 25-year-old mother of four, and her mother, Delita Starr, 50, sold an $11 "dime bag" of marijuana to a police informant in Oklahoma on Dec. 31, 2009. The informant returned two weeks later to buy $20 of marijuana. Spottedcrow, who worked in nursing homes before her arrest, and she told The Oklahoman she did it to get some extra money.

To read what your state leaders have to say about marijuana laws, check out NORML's your politicians on pot.

From Mother Jones Magazine
No Obama Budget Freeze for Prisons

— By James Ridgeway| Mon Feb. 22, 2010 1:39 PM PST
In the nation with the world’s highest incarceration rate, amid talk of dangerously high deficits and budget freezes, the White House proposes dramatically increasing spending on prisons.

A newly released report from the Justice Policy Institute, titled "The Obama Administration’s 2011 Budget: More Policing, Prisons, and Punitive Policies," analyzes the priorities reflected in the president’s overall spending plans for the Department of Justice in FY 2011 (which begins on October 1, 2010):

The President’s proposed FY2011 Department of Justice (DOJ) budget asks for $29.2 billion. This is on top of $4 billion provided to DOJ through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), much of which will continue to fund activities through 2011 and beyond. Although the budget has some specific allocations for juvenile justice that it had removed last year, it still reduces spending on juvenile justice programs, while allocating hundreds of millions to hire or retain police officers….and increasing federal prison spending. Read the article.

Patricia Spottedcrow -- Update. Tulsa World says Okalahoman article results in global support for Patricia's release.

The Tulsa World in partnership with Oklahoma Watch, an independent, nonprofit, investigative and in-depth reporting team presents Women in Prison. Did you know Oklahoma incarcerates more women than any other state? Take a look inside.

To contact Okalahoma's Governor Mary Fallin you can write:

Oklahoma State Capitol
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 212
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

E-mail: info@gov.ok.gov - Call (405) 521-2342 or Fax: (405) 521-3353

Patricia Marilyn Spottedcrow, a 25-year-old mother of four, and her mother, Delita Starr, 50, sold an $11 "dime bag" of marijuana to a police informant in Oklahoma on Dec. 31, 2009. The informant returned two weeks later to buy $20 of marijuana. Spottedcrow, who worked in nursing homes before her arrest, told The Oklahoman in March 2011 -- she did it to get some extra money.

Colorado legislation would eliminate over-use of solitary confinement

SB 176 creates requirements to be met before a state inmate, particularly an inmate with a serious mental illness, may be placed in administrative segregation
Supporters of SB 176 believe that the Colorado Department of Corrections is overusing expensive solitary confinement beds as a management tool for those afflicted with a serious mental illness rather than expanding mental health and behavioral health services. Colorado can’t afford to continue to make this choice. It is also bad public policy to allow people who have been contained in administrative segregation for long periods of time to be directly released into the community with minimal preparation. SB176 addresses those concerns and creates a process so that we may start to alleviate these issues, visit the Colorado Coalition for Criminal Justice Reform to learn more.