Shays takes lead on needed reform

12/20/07
The damage done to this country by politicians scared of being labeled “soft on crime” is incalculable. Generations of poor and inner-city children are raised in broken homes because overly harsh drug sentences rend parents from their families.
The notion that our drug laws are discriminatory is based on a simple fact: Crack cocaine, used primarily by black people, results in prison terms that are many times harsher than those stemming from powder cocaine, used primarily by white people. They are both deadly, they both come from the same source, but, when the laws were passed, one apparently scared legislators more than the other.
The Supreme Court tried to abate that catastrophe with its recent ruling that judges could issue lighter sentences, even retroactively, than those recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which played a large part in the disparity. It was an important step, but only goes so far.
The state General Assembly equalized the disparity in state law in 2005 and it’s time for federal action.
Most members of the Congressional Black Caucus support a bill that would repeal mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine convictions, which is the only change that would have a real impact on reducing the gap in punishments and injecting some morality into the proceedings.
To his great credit, Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, has stood up as the only member of his party to co-sponsor the bill. Pointing out that long prison terms are for violent or repeat offenders, Shays says the current policy is a sign of “a country that lacks a moral compass.”
His home district includes Bridgeport, a city that has seen more than its share of ruined families and abandoned children because fathers and mothers are sent to prison for years for a nonviolent drug offense. Ending mandatory minimums, as well as creating economic opportunities so people aren’t forced to turn to the drug trade, could make a huge difference here.
Shays seems secure enough in his position in Congress that the “soft on crime” label is not a concern, and likely wouldn’t come up in his blue-state district, anyway. Would that all legislators could vote their conscience and not their fears.