The U.S. Supreme Court last week examined sentencing rules that contribute to a tremendous racial disparity in punishment for drug-related crimes.

On October 2, the Court heard oral arguments in Kimbrough vs. the United States, a case concerning the discretion of judges in applying the federal Sentencing Guidelines. The case deals with the issue of whether a judge can depart from federal sentencing guidelines because of a disagreement with the underlying policy.

Derrick Kimbrough, a black veteran, plead guilty after he was arrested in 2004 with both powder and crack cocaine. Under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, he should have received a 19 to 22 year sentence. However, the judge in his case disagreed with the Guidelines' disproportionately harsh penalties for crack-related offenses, and opted to issue a 15 year sentence instead based solely on the mandatory minimum penalties applicable in the case.

Under a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, the Sentencing Guidelines have been deemed advisory, not mandatory. However, an appellate court in Kimbrough's case said that the judge had no right to ignore the guidelines based on a disagreement with the policy decision to punish crack-related offenses more harshly, as the Kimbrough case occurred prior to the 2005 decision.

Under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the disparity in penalties for crack offenses versus powder cocaine offenses is 100 to one. This means that a person arrested for possession of five grams of crack cocaine would be subject to the same mandatory minimum sentence as a person with 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Jasmine Tyler, DPA's deputy director of national affairs, said, "The decision in this case won't affect the sentencing disparity, but it does have the potential to allow judges to depart from the guidelines in individual cases. That would be a step in the right direction."

The court will issue a decision by spring of 2008.