Possible Crack Retroactivity Still Making Ripples

Last week's hearing before the U.S. Sentencing Commission on whether proposed crack guideline changes should be made retroactive is still getting media coverage.

This editorial in the Pasadena Star-News supports making guidelines retroactive, to the benefit of over 12,000 federal prisoners.

The interest in crack cocaine reform isn't just domestic -- the Irish Times wrote this article covering the hearing and quoted FAMM President Julie Stewart.

This article from the San Francisco Chronicle does a nice job of showing the need for making the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) itself -- and not just the altered crack sentencing guidelines -- retroactive.  It describes the case of Lyndon Baptist, who was convicted of a crack offense involving 14 grams of crack.  Pre-FSA, that amount of crack would earn him a 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence.  Post-FSA, it wouldn't trigger a mandatory minimum at all.  There's a growing nationwide disagreement about whether the FSA applies to people like Baptist -- it certainly doesn't apply to people who had already been sentenced on the day the FSA became law, August 3, 2010.  (For the record, Baptist got the pre-FSA 5-year mandatory sentence.)

This is a problem that only Congress can fix.  Making crack guideline changes retroactive doesn't impact the mandatory minimum crack sentences people are already serving -- only Congress can make the FSA's changes to mandatory minimums retroactive, by passing a new law.

FAMM supports full retroactivity of the FSA, both in its changes to crack sentencing guidelines and in its changes to crack mandatory minimums.