In April 2009 we wrote a post called “Crack vs. powder: the drug law that continues to ravage Black communities”. The difference in drug sentencing laws between crack and powder cocaine was astonishing and reflected deeply entrenched racism. Since 1986, defendants caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine have gotten the same punishment, five years in prison, as defendants convicted of possessing only five grams of crack cocaine. That’s a sentencing ratio of 100-1.

Thankfully, in August 2010 President Obama signed a new law that will close the long-disputed gap in federal sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine.  According to the PBS Newshour with Gwen Ifill, the new law reduces that dramatic disparity, cutting the ratio to about 18-1. And, for the first time in 40 years, Congress is rolling back a mandatory minimum sentence already on the books. The law won rare bipartisan support.

In an interview with former Arkansas Congressman Asa Hutchinson, who served as the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration under President George W. Bush, and Judge Reggie Walton, who sits on the U.S. District Court bench for Washington, D.C., Gwen Ifill explored the question of why this incredible disparity in drug sentencing existed in the first place. Judge Walton explained that crack cocaine was so devastating in inner-city communities, primarily because of the violence caused by drug organizations that were vying to stake out their turf. Also, there was a misperception that crack cocaine was something different chemically than what powder cocaine was. For these reasons crack cocaine developed more of a stigma than powder.

In response to the question of why attitudes have shifted, Congressman Hutchinson said “I remember when I was in Congress 14 years ago advocating for reducing this disparity, and — and many of my colleagues didn’t want to sign on to this because they didn’t want to be perceived as being weak on crime. They didn’t want to reduce the penalties for cocaine. And so it had to take a lot of very difficult stories to educate them, as well as the science catching up and the law enforcement community expressing, we need to change this for fairness.”

Gwen Ifill went on to point out that the new standards are not retroactive. And that the sentencing commission was silent on that point. Thus Hamida Hassan, a 42-year-old mother and grandmother who is 16 years into a 27 year prison sentence for a first time nonviolent crack offense, continues to languish in jail. In a recent All Things Considered, Ari Shapiro said that the Nebraska judge who heard her case said he didn’t want to give such a harsh sentence, but he saw no way to give a shorter term under federal sentencing guidelines at the time. Under the sentencing guidelines now in place, Hassan would have already served her time.

Jay Rorty of the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project is leading a campaign on behalf of Hassan and in his interview with Shapiro, he said “I have worked with prisoners for a long time and I’ve never seen the volume of letters and support from prison officials themselves in support of commutation.”

This interview was in the context of a discussion regarding the fact that President Obama has yet to exercise his pardon power and clearly Hamida Hassan is a great candidate. What is Obama waiting for? Is he afraid of political backlash? Is he afraid of being perceived as favoring someone with a Muslim name? Is this one more instance where the change we were promised will not materialize?

Hamida Hassan has been waiting 16 years. She, more than anyone, needs the Barack Obama we thought we elected in 2008.