Final answer:
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 compelled judges to enforce mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, particularly for crack cocaine offenses. This resulted in less judicial discretion and disproportionately harsher sentences for the possession of crack compared to powder cocaine, affecting mainly lower-income, Black, and Hispanic populations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act's Impact on Judicial Sentencing
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 had a profound impact on the American judicial system, particularly in the way judges were required to handle cases involving crack cocaine. The act enforced mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, significantly reducing the discretion that judges had in these cases. For instance, the act stipulated that the possession of five grams of crack cocaine would result in a mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years in federal prison. These sentencing guidelines for crack were substantially harsher than for powder cocaine, reflecting a 100-to-1 disparity in treatment for the same amount of substance by weight. This severe stance on crack cocaine possession disproportionately affected lower-income, Black, and Hispanic communities.
Moreover, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was a cornerstone of the broader "War on Drugs" that intensified under the Reagan administration. Although supporters justified the harsh penalties on crack's correlation with addiction and crime, many viewed the law as racially biased, contributing to an increase in incarceration rates among minorities.