Remember when Sammy Davis, Jr., belted out, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” in the theme from Baretta? The message was that you should be willing to pay the price if you’re willing break the law. But the implication was that punishment for the crime had a clear beginning and end. In other words, once you did “the time,” you earned the right to move on with your life.
Our Constitution expressly forbids trying a person twice for the same crime. The prohibition against double jeopardy goes to the heart of what our legal system is all about: equal justice under law. That sentiment should be extended to make sure a person is not punished repeatedly for the same crime, even a politically unpopular crime.
The sad reality is, that has never quite been the case. Convicted felons have a hard time getting jobs and housing, and in many states, they never regain the right to vote or sit on a jury. In other words, they are sentenced to certain forms of punishment that endure for the rest of their lives.
Fortunately, ex-cons at least have equal access to federal student loan assistance—unless they have a drug-related conviction. In 1998, President Bill “I didn’t inhale” Clinton approved a law, the brainchild of conservative House Republican Mark Souder of Indiana, that barred anyone with a drug conviction from receiving federal student financial aid. The law does not recognize differences between drugs, nor amounts used. Getting caught with an ounce of pot is the same as selling a kilo of coke: Either will get you permanently barred from eligibility for federal student loans and grants.
Souder and his fellow drug busters believed that receiving taxpayer-funded federal student financial aid is a privilege, not a right. Money talks, goes their argument, and the consequence of losing financial aid dollars might prove a powerful deterrent to drug use.
And yet, in a recent New York Times article, Souder conceded that the law went way too far. He claimed he never meant it to be so mean-spirited. He simply wanted to discourage students from experimenting with drugs. Souder now says that students who are denied federal financial aid for crimes committed before college should sue the government.
Needless to say, this law has a hugely disproportionate impact on blacks. African-Americans make up twelve percent of the nation’s population and thirteen percent of its drug users; yet they comprise a whopping fifty-five percent of drug-use convictions—the same convictions that will disqualify them from ever getting a student loan.
George W. Bush wants to amend the law by limiting its scope to those busted for drugs while in college. Those with criminal convictions for drug use before college would remain eligible for federal assistance, no matter how serious the conviction. So under the Bush plan, the crack cocaine dealer who got religion before applying to college would remain eligible for financial aid, but a current college student caught with a joint would lose her financial aid. According to studies, more than a third of all college students used drugs in the mid-nineties. Are the Bushies really prepared to yank financial aid from such a large chunk of the population? More to the point, Bush’s so-called “fix” completely sidesteps the underlying problem with this fundamentally ill-conceived law: it treats drug-users differently from other lawbreakers.
Don’t get me wrong. I am adamantly against illegal drug use and believe that those who break drug laws should be punished. However, in meting out such punishment, we must ensure that we do not create a cure more devastating than the disease. Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank was absolutely right when he said, “We should abolish the whole rule. We should not encourage drug use, but you shouldn’t single that out as being worse than rape or arson or armed robbery.”
Are all drug users really beyond rehabilitation, where rapists, arsonists, and burglars are not? Should any college student who indulges in drugs be promptly expelled, and have the doors of higher education forever slammed in his face? Why do drug users not get the same equal justice under the law?
It’s time to reconsider how our so-called war on drugs is compromising basic Constitutional tenets of fairness. You do the crime, you do the time—once. Then you should be done.