ce of balance. If a man helps unload a boat of marijuana just once to pay for his wifes cancer treatments (an actual case), he is subject to the same minimum sentence as the mastermind of the whole scheme. As a prime example of the irrationality of mandatory minimums, we should consider the sentencing disparity for users of different types of cocaine. Under the drug laws, five grams of crack cocaine draw the same mandatory five-year minimum sentence as 500 grams of powder cocaine. No scientific or crime-policy reason justifies the enormous 100-to-1 ratio. The gaping difference is particularly troubling because it has racially charged implications: eighty-five percent of federal crack cocaine offenders are African-American, while powder cocaine offenders are more likely to be white or Hispanic.Another troubling part of mandatory minimum sentencing is its harsh sentencing of first time, low-level non-violent, offenders. Unlike criminals higher up the chain of command, the small-time criminal cannot inform on anyone else and thereby render substantial assistance to the government, which is the only way to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence. One example of such atrocity is the story of two twin brothers fresh from college whose parents friend was arrested and merely said he sold the twins cocaine. With no further evidence they received 15 and 19 years respectively. With low level offenders in prison for fifteen years or more for a victimless crime, taxpayers suffer the real consequences. To feed, clothe, house and guard these 65,697 prisoners cost taxpayers $4.14 million per day, or $1.51 billion annually. About 60% of federal inmates, that is 65,697 people, are drug offenders and half of these are first time non-violent offenders. Each year, the portion of tax dollars that goes to support federal prisoners grows faster than any other federal expenditure, including the environment, defense, transportation, social security and mo...
