Holder Takes it Easy on Drug Dealers by Handicapping Prosecutors in Drug Cases

The prosecutor would write that “the defendant conspired to distribute cocaine” without saying how much.


This move is being hailed as some long overdue liberalization of America's repressive drug laws. Here is what it is.

Attorney General Eric Holder, who has never found a law preventing actual crime that he wouldn't trash for a partisan racial agenda, is ordering prosecutors to dodge mandatory sentences for drug dealers by hiding the amount of the drug sale.

Under a policy memorandum being sent to all United States attorney offices on Monday, according to an administration official, prosecutors will be told that they may not write the specific quantity of drugs when drafting indictments for drug defendants who meet the following four criteria: their conduct did not involve violence, the use of a weapon or sales to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or cartels; and they have no significant criminal history.

For example, in the case of a defendant accused of conspiring to sell five kilograms of cocaine — an amount that would set off a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence — the prosecutor would write that “the defendant conspired to distribute cocaine” without saying how much. The quantity would still factor in when prosecutors and judges consult sentencing guidelines, but depending on the circumstances, the result could be a sentence of less than the 10 years called for by the mandatory minimum law, the official said.


Amid a rise in crime rates a generation ago, state and federal lawmakers began passing a series of “tough on crime” laws, including mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession. But as crime rates have plummeted to 40-year lows and reduced the political potency of the fear of crime, fiscal pressures from the exploding cost of building and maintaining prisons have prompted states to find alternatives to incarceration.

Crime rates have fallen because of tough on-crime laws. So the liberal uses that to argue that we don't need the laws anymore.