Rock v. Blow: The Apologies Begin

Drug warriors are better known for mandatory minimums than hand-wringing contrition. That may be about to change.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

in march, bill clinton made headlines when he expressed regret over the 100-to-1 disparity between federal sentences for crack- and powder-cocaine-related offenses. “We sentenced with a shotgun instead of a rifle,” he told an audience in Philadelphia. He promised he would “spend a significant portion of whatever life I’ve got left on the earth trying to fix this, because I think it’s a cancer.”

Clinton’s dramatic apology was another sign that politicians are rethinking the harsh drug laws that have long been decried for their disproportionate effect on African Americans. The about-face began in April of 2007 when the US Sentencing Commission voted to soften sentences for first-time crack offenders. (See “Crackdown Chronology.”) In December, the ussc unanimously voted to make the reduced penalties for crack offenses retroactive. (Nearly 85 percent of the prisoners eligible for reductions are black.) Sen. Barack Obama was quick to praise the change. “Let’s not make the punishment for crack cocaine that much more severe than the punishment for powder cocaine,” he told a Howard University audience, “when the real difference between the two is the skin color of the people using them.” In February, Sen. Joe Biden, a staunch drug warrior during the 1980s, slammed the discrepancy as “arbitrary, unnecessary, and unjust” and introduced legislation that would eliminate it. That month, Sen. Hillary Clinton told Vibe that she’d “been a strong advocate of eliminating the disparity.” (Her campaign aides had earlier claimed Obama’s support for the ussc decision would hurt him with tough-on-crime white independents.)

Drug policy experts caution that crack-sentencing reform does not address the greater evils of the drug war: mandatory minimum sentences aimed at low-level drug offenders. “The guidelines hammer street-corner dealers with kingpin-style sentences,” says Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. It’s a mistake that Sterling, who was counsel to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee during the heyday of mandatory minimums, admits “I contributed to.” The wave of contrition has yet to penetrate the inner reaches of the Justice Department, which has long opposed even modest sentencing-reform efforts.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend