Skip to main content

The Drug War’s Aftermath: How Federal Crack Prosecutions Drive Institutional Racial Inequality

We are in the midst of a national opioid addiction crisis that rivals the 1980s’ drug crisis involving crack cocaine. So far, the official governmental response to the opioid crisis has been much more measured, treating the problem more as a public health issue than a criminal justice one. Such was not the case with crack cocaine. As some commentators have noted, a major difference between these two crises is the public face of the addict in each instance, as distinguished by race. 

It is hard to overstate the punitive impact of the crack frenzy, built on racialized stereotypes about both crack addicts and their suppliers, and unleashed across the U.S. The federal government led the way in turning the crack panic into legislation, passing draconian sentencing statutes that incorporated a 100-1 powder-crack cocaine weight disparity in the mandatory minimum sentence thresholds. Federal law enforcement increasingly targeted crack cocaine suspects, wielding the punitive power of those statutes to obtain convictions and long sentences in districts across the nation. The majority of crack defendants charged in federal court were black, which directly contributed to growing inequality in the criminal caseloads.

In Crack as Proxy: Aggressive Federal Drug Prosecutions and the Production of Black-White Racial Inequality,we revisit the federal crack war to see what it can tell us about the broader problem of racial inequality in criminal justice today. We examine federal prosecutorial practices after the crack frenzy had faded and many of the myths about crack’s unique dangers had been debunked, to see whether the pursuit of crack cases is associated with black-white inequality. We hypothesized that U.S. Attorneys’ offices that continued to be more aggressive in charging defendants in crack cases, relative to other kinds of drug cases, and relative to case strength and seriousness, would demonstrate higher rates of black-white racial inequality in case outcomes across the entire criminal caseload. 

And that’s what we found.  In particular, the share of crack cases prosecuted in a district in any given year predicted the degree of racial disproportionality in both conviction rates and sentence lengths for all criminal defendants. Put simply, the more crack cases, the more likely that black defendants, relative to white defendants, were prosecuted and convicted in the district, and the longer their sentences. 

For example, as illustrated in the left graph of this figure, federal districts with high levels of crack caseloads had black conviction rates over 8 times higher than white conviction rates. And we found that these prosecution practices did not map onto crack usage patterns, suggesting other factors were at play. It may seem like common sense to predict that crack prosecutions would directly contribute to inequality, given that the federal crack war was infamously and demonstrably waged against black defendants. But even when we removed crack cases from our measures of inequality, crack prosecutions were still associated with racially unequal criminal justice outcomes for other kinds of cases, as illustrated in the right graph.  

This finding of a “spillover effect” warns us that discriminatory practices in federal court are both more pervasive and more insidious than the racialized war on crack. In that sense, crack prosecutions function as the proverbial miner’s canary, signaling broader institutional bias where they prevail that continues to harm people of color today. 

Popular posts from this blog

On writing

By Susan Sterett
Law & Society Review Co-Editor

One thing I know for sure after having co-edited Law and Society Review for almost three years is that just about every college and university would like more publications from faculty members. Many colleges and universities around the world want people to write for peer-reviewed journals, so like other journals, Law and Society Review has been getting an increasing number of submissions. Some journals have big backlogs. Some journals have stopped accepting submissions. Everyone is overwhelmed with content. How can you prepare your paper for LSR? This post will point to a few resources that could help, based in my experience from editing, conversations with other editors, and my conversations at the wonderful 2017 sociolegal studies early career workshop at the University of Cape Town. All have made me rethink how I submit to journals.

A few thoughts, most of which are readily found on the internet. Even so, many people may no…

Law & Society Review is pleased to announce two opportunities for scholars who are from or who write about the Global South. Both opportunities have early January deadlines.

The first opportunity is the Sociolegal Studies Early Career Writing Workshop, March 21-23, 2019, at the University of Cape Town. This intensive workshop, co-sponsored by Law & Society Review, is for a small group of early career scholars from any university in Africa to receive feedback on papers in progress and mentoring on writing/publishing processes. The goal is to help one another toward writing goals and publication. The Workshop will cover travel expenses and accommodation. Applications (including draft paper and letter of reference) are due January 14, 2019. For details, please visit the Early Career Workshop website here. For additional questions, contact

Another opportunity is the Law and Society in Africa conference, April 1-3, 2019, organized by American University Cairo's Law & Society Research Unit. The first Law and Society in Africa Conference, held in South Africa in 2016, was a great success, with more than 100 attendees…

How do text messages complicate contemporary sexual assault adjudication?

By Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla 
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University

“There’s no video, no injury. It’s purely one hundred percent ‘he said, she said.’ They had a terrible relationship. They were nasty to each other and they don’t get along well, probably never will. But there is no evidence to support the state’s case, other than their words.” Our article, “’That’s How She Talks’: Animating Text Message Evidence in the Sexual Assault Trial,” begins with these familiar words offered by a defense attorney during a sexual assault trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The oft-invoked trope of “he said, she said” in cases of sexual violence suggests that without third-party eye witness testimony or material evidence, sexual assault allegations rest on conflicting reports provided by victims, the accused, and other witnesses. But how do trial attorneys reinvent this trope when the words of the witnesses are preserved as text messages?

Text messages are recorded co…