I was recently watching a Courtroom show (Judge Matthews I think) and the defendant in the case admitted to being on probation/parole for drug possession in a very large quantity. I know the drug in question was cocaine, and the guy had served less than a year. The judge said something to the effect that the brother back on the block in Detroit could have used that guy’s lawyer. Which in turn gave me the following train of thought.
As most people are aware, (since it’s been hashed out here a million times) there are mandatory minimums for a lot of drug crimes. I’m particularly concerned with cocaine and crack cocaine and the disparity in sentencing as a result of differing weights, triggering a mandatory minimum. This tends to result in longer sentencing for crack cocaine dealers then powder cocaine dealers. Now here’s where I want to turn the typical debate on its head.
Wouldn’t some suburban couple be right in suing the government over the sentence handed down to the dealer who hooked little Johnny helplessly on powder cocaine on Equal Protection grounds? I mean here in Oakland if Pookie, J-Rock and his buddies set up their crack-house near a school and the DEA bust them, those guys are looking at some serious time. Shouldn’t the guys in Walnut Creek be complaining if Thomas, Richard and Harrison do the same thing, but the only difference is they’re dealing powder?
Thoughts?