Opinion ID: 1907719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Incongruity of Ms. Park's Extra Year.

Text: In order to explain the logical and constitutional problems presented by Ms. Park's sentence, I now reproduce the table which Judge Ferren has helpfully included in the opinion of the court. See maj. op. at 88. CRACK COCAINE OTHER COCAINE POWDER NARCOTICS Major Dealer Major Dealer Major Dealer (50 + grams) (500 + grams) (500 + grams) 1st 5 years 5 years 5 years offense 2nd or 10 years 10 years 10 years subsequent offense CRACK COCAINE OTHER COCAINE POWDER NARCOTICS Minor Dealer Minor Dealer Minor Dealer (Less than (Less than (Less than 50 grams) 500 grams) 500 grams) 1st 4 years 5 years 4 years offense 2nd 7 years 8 years 7 years offense 3rd or 10 years 10 years 10 years subsequent offense The careful reader will discern that the penalties reflected in this table are, for the most part, logical and consistent with one another. Major dealers are punished more severely than minor dealers, and a recidivist will receive more time for repeating his nefarious misdeeds. The one glaring exception is the penalty for distribution of cocaine powder. For a first offense, a major dealer in cocaine powder receives a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. Remarkably, however, a first-time minor dealer receives exactly the same minimum sentence. Compare this treatment with the provisions for major and minor dealers in other drugs. A major dealer in crack cocaine, or in other narcotics, receives a five year mandatory minimum. His or her minor dealer counterpart, however, receives only four years. With respect to crack cocaine and other narcotics, Judge Ferren's table confirms the sentencing scheme as described by the Judiciary Committee. Major dealers receive an extra year in prison. With respect to powdered cocaine, on the other hand, the distinction between major and minor dealers  the raison d' tre of the ONADIAA  has been abandoned or ignored. Everyone who distributes powdered cocaine receives the same mandatory minimum, regardless of the amount distributed. With respect to this single drug, the conditions that caused the Council to enact the ONADIAA continue unabated  identical sentences remain for major and minor dealers, contrary to the stated legislative design. The second incongruity of the sentencing scheme for cocaine powder is that the minor dealer in that particular drug receives a more severe mandatory minimum sentence than his counterpart who sells far more addictive and far more dangerous crack cocaine. The Judiciary Committee Report contains no explanation for this unexpected result, which translates into an odd proposition: the more dangerous the contraband, the lighter the penalty. I know of no rational explanation for such a rule. Human beings are finite creatures. They make mistakes. I believe that this is what happened here. [23] I consider it highly improbable that the Councilmembers intentionally ignored the difference between major and minor dealers in powdered cocaine. I likewise do not believe that they really meant to impose a more severe mandatory minimum sentence on the seller of a less dangerous drug than on the distribution of a more dangerous one. Rather, I suspect that the wrong number may have been written into the statute as a result of somebody's error. [24] If the Council did intend the anomalous results which the statutory numbers suggest, then in my view the Constitution has been transgressed.