The Fair Sentencing Act
On August 3, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, for the first time in the History of the U.S (Grindle, 2010). This law was a response to the then claims of racial biases of the law in convicting drug dealers. This Act established new quantity thresholds, which were meant to trigger statutory mandatory minimum and maximum penalties for offenses related to cocaine. By so doing, this law amended the Controlled Substance Act and the controlled import and export of substance. This new law saw to it that the quantities of cocaine that triggered the five-year compulsory smallest penalty were increased up to 28 grams of the previous 5 grams while the ten-year penalty would be directed to individuals bearing 280 grams up from the previous 50 grams. Instead of the previous 100:1 crack to drug powder ratio was reduced to 18:1 (Grindle, 2010). This law reacted to the masses of African Americans who were incarcerated as a result of possessing even the smallest amounts of cocaine as compared to the white counterparts. Powdered cocaine was considered less offensive than the possession of cocaine. Most African Americans can only afford the crack cocaine since it is relatively cheaper and easier to access. This law did not, however, protect those who had been incarcerated earlier because of these crimes. This research paper seeks to look into the role of the three branches of government in passing this law successfully.
Who sponsored the bill?
The Congress sponsored this Bill. The federal government saw a need to minimize the cases of incarceration and especially on the minority population, mainly composed of African Americans (Hyser, 2012). Very many African Americans were serving sentences due to minimum quantities of cocaine found in their possession. In the right sense, such small amounts of procession did not warrant the time they served in correctional facilities. The judiciary was responsible for setting this bill moving, and in eventually implementing it. The law would take effect as from August 3, 2010, when it is enacted. The government's role in influencing the passing of this law is evident by the role the president plays in signing this law.
The makeup of the government
At the time of the passing of this law, the Congress was divided, and the Act was thus opposed by some of the members. A majority of the Congress members’ were however in agreement with the act. Lamar Smith, a top-ranking Republican disagreed with this act citing that crack cocaine did not deserve to be treated like powder cocaine (Grindle, 2010). His argument stemmed from the fact that crack cocaine was scientifically more addictive and resulted in cases of violence as compared to powder cocaine. He further maintained that the violence would affect people who lived in neighborhoods where crack cocaine was the main deal, especially within the African American community. The law, however, passed owing to a majority who supported it fully.
Political Ideology
The most evident political ideology in the passing of this Act is conservatism. The latter refers to a political ideology in which the traditional beliefs of a country or the people of a country such as religion, social systems, and customs are preserved. This ideology opposes radical changes, which may alter the regular belief systems. The American nation is popular for its belief in equality and democracy. The previous laws on drugs were seen as racially biased since it sent too many African Americans to prison over something they could not control (Witherspoon, 2007). Most of them fall in the lower social class, and it is only normal for them to acquire the cheaper version of cocaine despite the consequences the cocaine may have on them. Conservatism played a role in reminding the judicial systems that the law should be equal to all citizens despite their social class or their color.
New or Preexisting policy?
Before the enactment of this policy, many policies had emerged in relation to Substance abuse. In 1994, a 100:1 ratio reform of sentence disparity was called by the United States Sentencing Commission, after a study by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act on the different penalties offered to crack and powdered cocaine offenders (Grindle, 2010). The commission established that the current system for sentencing was unjust since the difference between these two types of cocaine was close to insignificant. The recommendations suggested by the commission were rejected by the Congress.
In 1997, for the second time, a reduction in the sentencing disparity was recommended by the Commission. The latter went ahead to give the Congress ratio options of 15:1 and 2:1 from which they could choose an option (Grindle, 2010). The aim of this recommendation was to increase crack cocaine amounts, which triggered a minimum 5-year jail sentence. This recommendation was also rejected by the Congress.
In 2001, there was a turn of events in the proposal of the Act. The Congress went ahead to propose legislation that would reform the sentence on cocaine. This proposal intended to raise the volume of cocaine that would trigger the mandatory minimum sentence from the previous 5 grams. Similarly, the quantity of cocaine powder was to be lowered to a quantity of 400 grams down from the 500 grams at the time. A total of seven reform bills on crack cocaine were proposed at the 110th Congress. These bills aimed at reducing the disparity in sentencing between powder and cocaine.
Orrin Hatch sponsored the 2007 Fairness in Drugs Act that aimed at increasing the amount of cocaine, leaving the powdered cocaine at the same level. Later that year, the Drug Reform Sentencing Act was sponsored by Joe Biden, the serving vice president of U.S.A. The Act advocated for a complete elimination of any disparity between powder and crack cocaine offenses.
In relation to these incidences, it is, therefore, rightful to claim that the Fairness in Sentencing Act of 2010 was nothing new to the legislatures in the U.S.A. Proposals towards the Act had been made before but had not taken root until 2010, when it finally was given a hearing and successfully passed as law.
Positions of various actors (House of Representatives, the president, and the Supreme Court)
Various actors were involved in the passing of FSA OF 2010. Amongst these actors was the president himself, the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, and the Congress. The president supported the Act and went ahead to sign it without any opposition. Sheila Jackson Lee, the Texas House representative, led the House of Representatives in sponsoring the 2007 Cocaine Trafficking Act, as well as the Drug Sentencing Reform (Hyser, 2012). These reforms were aimed towards eliminating, the existence of disparity in sentencing. The House of Representatives thus supported the FSA since it was going to achieve an objective that they had set forth to achieve. The Supreme Court, led by the Attorney General signed the law, allowing that they were in agreement with this Act. The Deputy Attorney General signed a memorandum for all federal prosecutors to notify them of the Law, which was to be enacted in August of 2010. The overall support of these actors towards this Act contributed largely towards its success.
Approach of the primary Congress Members
The Congress adopted a statesman home-style approach in supporting this Act. This approach is issue oriented and focuses only on national policy issues and on substantive problems, which affect the American people (Hyser, 2012). Joe Biden and Sheila Jackson Lee, the now vice president and the U.S representative for Texas both chose to focus on this issue as a national issue rather than to representing the government and the state of Texas respectively. The enactment of this Act would benefit the whole country. Racial tension was rising, and the African Americans felt like the judicial system were targeting them (Larkin, 2014). The Congress, therefore, voted to pass the Act and allow justice to reign in the U.S.A. The members were more concerned about finding a solution to an issue, that representing their respective states.
National news coverage
The amendment of the Fair Sentencing Act was widely covered by media houses throughout the U.S.A. This was only logical as it signified a major turning point on one of the most common and notorious reason for conviction of some of the minority groups. The Act affected all the states and was, therefore, a nationally recognized issue. There were a variety of bodies who opposed the Act, such as the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) and the Fraternal Order of Police (Graham, 2011). This created even more news for the newsrooms. The New York Times, CNN, Times Magazine and political analysts had a big piece to chew off this Act. The controversies, oppositions and the importance of the Act were addressed in equal measures. Individual members of Congress were interviewed to capture both the opposing and the proposing sides of the Act.
The national coverage left no stones untouched in relaying the news concerning the Act. The members of the public were further interviewed by these newsrooms to know what their views were concerning the act. As expected, some individuals from the general public supported the Act, and others cried foul, declaring that the Act would mean an increase in cases of violence and crime (Graham, 2011).
Opinion Polls
Polls carried out in California after the passing of the Act showed that a large number of Latinos supported the new penalties on cocaine offenses. They Governor of California, Governor Jerry Brown signed the law in relation to the Fair Sentencing Act in which both the powder and Crack cocaine sentences would be treated as equal offenses (Hyser, 2012). The amounts of crack to render a minimal sentence was however increased to lower incidences of sentencing. In New Jersey, the Act was met with a mixed reaction especially between the members of different races. While most members of the Caucasian community opposed the Act, the African American community who were previously the most affected by the Act supported the Act fully. The Different States showed a wide variety of views concerning the Act, with most states supporting the Act citing that it portrayed the real American spirit and promoted a peaceful coexistence amongst Americans
Supreme Court and Legislative standpoints
The Supreme Court accepted the Law as representing the voice of the American people through the Congress. The Attorney General and other participants within the judiciary did not raise any objection to the passed Law. The president did not in any way object to the ruling by the Congress. He signed the Act into law then passed the button to the judiciary who would see the suitable time for the enactment of the law. The Fair Sentencing law voiced out the need for an equal judicial system irrespective of social or racial backgrounds. The president and the judiciary, as well as the Congress, had one intention; to create an equal and just system, which did not favor the majority, while putting at a disadvantage, the minority.
Representation Theory
Burke's representation theory concerns itself with the manner in which legislators are able to connect with their constituents located in the districts, or rather a manner in which legislators roll call votes align with the preferred positions of the constituents regarding those votes (Graham, 2011). In other words, a member of the Congress or a representative of a State has to resonate with the views of the people he or she is representing. Representational style has everything to do with communication. A legislature has to communicate both within the legislative boundaries and outside, to be conversant with the public opinion of those he is representing. The manner in which members behave in Washington while representing the views and concerns of their people and the votes cast to support or oppose a law must resonate with what his constituents subscribe to. Most legislatures use home styles to influence their representation styles, thus supporting only those views or laws, which are popular amongst constituents.
The Fair Sentencing Act was a national concern, which required legislatures and State representatives to step out of their house styles and into national issues. Most participants who make up the Congress were influenced by the urgency of this issue rather than the views of their constituents. To a smaller extent, however, it is e arguable that the cry for equality in the judicial systems by some of their constituents influenced the representational style of the members of the Congress (Graham, 2011). Members from Latino-dominated areas and African American populated areas represented the needs of their people in voting for the Act, while representatives from states such as Iowa and Mississippi acted from a statesman perspective, putting the needs of the country above the views of their constituents.
Federalism
This Bill had been proposed severally before at the Congress but had been ignored or objected multiple times before. The Bill showed federalism at work at its best. This is because the federal government passed the Bill, which was then enacted as the Law and was supposed to be taken up by all the judicial systems around the country. Some states took a longer time to sign the Law while some signed it immediately after it was enacted. Whichever the case, this law was the ultimate show of federalism- a belief in the existence of a stronger central government which has the ability to authorize certain Bills. This Bill had not been discussed at the state level, and it was upon the federal government to identify its role in a society which was experiencing high rates of racial tensions at the moment, before passing it to Law.
Throughout the passing of this law, there's a close connection between the roles played by the government Branches; the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature. The executives in this case scenario are the President and the Vice President. President Barack Obama plays a huge role in signing the law despite the opposition and criticisms that it had received from agencies and individuals alike (Graham, 2011). Joe Bidden had earlier on shown support for the Bill and remained supportive of the Bill even as it was being signed and allowed into America's judicial system. Once he Bill had been signed, the judiciary led by the Attorney General took part in officiating the Bill and bringing it into the Justice system. The Attorney General sent a memo to all the judicial systems within states to take into consideration the laws laid out by the Bill and to begin, as soon as August, making decisions based on the Act put in place. The Attorney General's signature, permitting the entry of this Bill into Law was the final step needed to make this Law recognized by the public (Hyser, 2012). Not forgetting the role played by the legislatures over the years, in coming up with this Bill and identifying the manner in which this Bill could right the wrongs in the society and the Legislative Branch of the government. These three arms all played a significant role in ensuring that the Bill was not only passed, nut successfully enacted. The Bill has since its establishment been active, and has helped in decongesting prisons of petty crimes, and encouraging an overall spirit of coexistence with one another.
In a nutshell, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 wasn't just a normal act in reaction to public opinion, but rather an Act revealing the weaknesses that had been part of the judicial system, and had not been addressed. This Act presented what America truly stands for' equality, and justice for all as written in the words of the National Anthem. This Act portrayed the essence of criminal law in general; criminals should be treated equally and given equal sentences regardless of their social class or racial background. The Law should apply to all people at equal measures (Weatherspoon, 2007). The government branches assist in validating any law that has been passed. The agreement of the three branches of the government concerning a particular law gives weight and power to the law which has been passed. Thus despite the criticisms and oppositions that a Law may garner before it is enacted, a lot of weight is emphasized by the authoritative branches of the government. The Fairness Sentencing Act as a clear indication of federalism and the importance of it. In the absence of a strong centralized state, the 50 states of the American nation would each have done as they wished, and justice would have not prevailed.
References
Graham, K. (2011). Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,
Crack, and Methamphetamine. University of Richmond Law Review, 765-799.
Grindle, Gary. (2010). “Fair Sentencing Act of 2010." Memorandum for all Federal Prosecutors. FAIR SENTENCING ACT OF 2010
August 5, 2010. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/fair-
Sentencing-act-memo.pdf.
Hyser, Sarah. (2012) "Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: How Federal Courts took the
"Fair" Out of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010" Penn State Law Review. Vol 117:2. Web
http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/117/2/117-2-Comment_Hyser.pdf
Larkin, Paul. (2014). "Crack Cocaine, Congressional Inaction, and Equal Protection." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Vol 37.1.241. Web. FAIR SENTENCING ACT OF 2010 http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/37_1_241_Larkin.pdf
Weatherspoon, F.D. (2007). The Mass Incarceration of African-American Males: A Return to Institutionalized Slavery, Oppression, and Disenfranchisement of Constitutional Rights. Texas Wesleyan Law Review, 599-616.
