In 1986 Democrats saw an opportunity to outflank the Republicans and get "tough on crime" after a Boston basketball star died of a cocaine overdose (Sterling 1). Mandatory sentencing is a direct result of that campaign. It is a system that was intended to toughen up the country's drug laws and curb the drug sentencing disparities that existed between federal court districts (Sarver 2). However, mandatory sentencing has been ineffective in reducing the rise of drug offenses, often targets small time drug traffickers, and has disproportionate penalties that some attribute to racism. .
The idea behind mandatory sentencing was to encourage prosecution of high-level drug traffickers (Sterling 2). However, under its laws, it doesn't take a whole lot of drugs to get some major time. For example, a drug offender could get 5 years in prison (without parole) for as little as five grams of crack cocaine, which is only worth a couple of hundred dollars and is only about 25 hits (depending on purity) (Sterling 2). The result is the arrest of a lot of small time dealers and not enough big ones. In 1995 only 11% of federal drug trafficking defenders were considered major-traffickers. More than half were low-level offenders (Sterling 2). The federal government recognized this and, in an effort to get the small time dealers to give up their big time connections, a "loophole" was created. A more lenient sentence could be granted if the offender has given "substantial assistance" to the government for the prosecution of another drug offender, preferably a major trafficker (Sterling 3). Since some petty drug peddlers don't know the root supplier they often give up other small handlers and exaggerate their involvement. The result is other low-level traffickers can become victims of lies by codefendants that have figured out how to cut a deal and manipulate the sentencing laws to their advantage (Sterling 5).