Crack Cocaine Sentencing Report

With how controversial plea bargains can be for defendants’ fates, looking at the use of plea bargains in federal crack cocaine sentences is examining two levels of the American criminal system that is unjust for many. It was in 2007 when the U.S. Sentencing Commission, after “lobbying Congress in vain for ten years to remedy the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses” (Kosman 786), successfully added a ‘crack amendment’ to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The amendment attempted to decrease the sentences of some defendants who had been convicted of crack cocaine offenses, and the Sentencing Commission was able to make the policy retroactive, so that they could take another look at those who were sentenced unjustly. …show more content…
The judge has the power to accept or deny the plea deal, and part of this process is to deny sentences that stray too far from the Sentencing Guidelines. Kosman writes that it is even encouraged for the prosecutor, defendant, and judge to agree to a plea sentence “explicitly calculated according to guidelines” (Kosman 806). Federal district courts that have denied these motions for sentence modifications, and federal circuit appellate courts that have upheld such rulings based on assumptions of the plea sentence and the per se rule have clearly demonstrated the overall trouble plea bargains have caused defendants. While plea bargains have clearly not been the best deal for defendants who are often first-time offenders, such a high rate of cases ending in plea bargains demonstrates the ubiquity and power of the practice in the American criminal system. This facet, combined with the disparity in crack cocaine sentencing has produced even more unjust outcomes for defendants who were offered sentence reductions by the Sentencing Commission, and reflects the harsh reality of plea bargains in the American criminal