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

Europeanization or National Specificity? Legal Approaches to Sexual Harassment in France, 2002–2012

By Abigail Saguy, UCLA

Sexual harassment represents a massive problem for working women worldwide. A recent social media campaign has brought increased awareness to this fact. In late 2017—after three-dozen women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, or rape—millions of women posted “Me Too” on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Taking inspiration from African American activist Tarana Burke—who, in 2007, started an offline “Me Too” campaign to let sex abuse survivors know that they were not alone—actress Alyssa Milano launched this online Me Too campaign to shift the focus from Weinstein to victims. She hoped this would “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[1] While some posted simply, “Me Too,” others provided wrenching detail about abuse they had sometimes never before shared publicly. In France, a similar social media campaign flourished, under the hashtag “balance ton porc,” loosely translated as “sq…

Comment: Making valid claims in social science research: A comment on Jenness and Calavita

By Tom Tyler, Yale Law School

I am writing to comment on several methodological issues raised by the article by Valerie Jenness and Kitty Calavita, entitled “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice”. I am pleased that the methodology blog for Law and Society Review has been created and provides a forum to discuss research design issues. I will address three aspects of the study: operationalization of the variables; statistical analysis; and inclusiveness of the literature review.

The Jenness/Calavita paper studies California prisons using data collected through interviews with prisoners. The paper says that it tests the perceptual procedural justice model, in particular there are frequent references to the Tyler model, in a prison setting. The study concludes that “prisoners privilege the actual outcome of disputes as their barometer of justice” showing “the dominance of substantive outcomes” (from the abstract)”.

I agree with Jenness and Cala…

The Roots of Life Without Parole Sentencing

By Christopher Seeds, New York University



Since the early 1970s, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP)—an extreme prison sentence offering no reasonable possibility of release—has emerged as a routine legal sanction and penal practice in the United States. A century, even several decades ago, this would have been unexpected. Yet today, with more than 50,000 prisoners so sentenced and hundreds of laws authorizing it, LWOP is firmly entrenched in American penal policy, in judicial and prosecutorial decisionmaking, and in public discourse. Two general theses—one depicting LWOP as a replacement penalty for capital crimes; another linking LWOP with tough-on-crime sentencing policy of the mass incarceration era—have served as working explanations for this phenomenon. In the absence of in-depth studies, however, there has been little evidence with which to carefully evaluate these narratives.

My article, “Disaggregating LWOP: Life Without Parole, Capital Punishment, and …