Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The War On Drugs : Mandatory Minimum Sentencing For Drug Possession And Distribution
discussion on mandatory minimum sentencing laws
mandatory minimum sentencing in the united states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
It was June 18, 1971, the day that the United States of America would change forever. It was the day that President Richard Nixon declared that the war on drugs was the number one priority in the American criminal justice system. Throughout the years following this speech congress enacted a number of laws to keep with the president 's wishes, one of which, was mandatory minimum drug sentences. Mandatory minimum drug sentences are exactly what they sound like mandatory sentences for various drug offenses. Throughout the last 15 years, the public view on mandatory minimums has changed from a positive reaction with the vast majority of reasonable people backing it, to one where the name simply brings on a negative connotationbut why? And are mandatory …show more content…
5) While that sounds great in theory, the problem arises when the public is unaware of these laws. If the punishment for breaking a law in unknown, than the fear for breaking the law is nowhere to be found.
According to Dr. Mulhausen, mandatory minimum drug sentences are necessary for combatting indeterminate sentences done by judges. With these indeterminate sentences, Dr.
Mulhausen feared that judges were giving criminals a second chance at life at the expense of the safety of the ppublic. By doing this, criminals who should have been spending time in jail, were let free and often went on to victimize others instead of using their second chance for good.
While the above two claims may make mandatory minnimum sentences seem like a positive and much needed law, what they are failing to mention is the negative social, economical and emotional effects that mandatory minimum drug sentences have on not only the person who committed the crime and their family, but on the nation as
…show more content…
Anyone who reads this scenario will easily say that Michaela deserves to be rehabilitated and given a second chance at a new life, while Lucie should serve the rest of her life behind bars.
Once again, everyone seems to agree with this besides the United States legislature. They believe that Michaela and Lucie are equally guilty of committing a crime and breaking the law, and therefore should be equally guilty when it comes to deciding whether or not they should serve time. Outrageous? I agree.
Mandatory minimum drug sentences had a great hypothesis and were good enough to make it to the trial round when deciding how to end the war drugs. 20 years and many sad and horrifying cases later, we realize that mandatory minimum drug sentences do not in fact lower the drug crime rate. Instead, they help with overcrowding prisons, taking money away from taxpayers, and keeping nonviolent offenders locked away fro outrageously long period of time while allowing violent offenders to walk freely among the rest of us. Mandatory minimums need to be a done away with and drug sentences need to be handled on a case by case basis due to the fact that the majority of them are not committed with the intent to hurt anyone or
It represented a new world of confinement that removed the convict from his community and regimented his life. It introduced society to a new notion of punishment and reform. (Curtis et al, 1985)
By definition, watershed years are years of change or revolution. However, under the examination of history one watershed year truly stands out as “the watershed year”. It was 1968; the United States began an operation known as the Tet Offensive, January 31, 1968 that marked the pinnacle of US involvement in Vietnam (as military advisors in 1950, and the deployment of combat units in 1965). This year also marked the assassinations of two high-profile public figures, Martin Luther King Jr. (April 4, 1968) and Robert Kennedy (June 5, 1968). President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not seek a second term in office as the President of the United States, which spurred a democratic convention in Chicago from August 26 to August 29, 1968. On August 28 a “police riot” took place in Grant Park after the police busted through a crowd to beat down a young man who lowered the American Flag resulting in the police having objects thrown at them from the crowd in his defense. In retaliation, the police began using large amounts of mace in order to control the wild mob of war protestors. Finally, the election of President Richard Nixon occurred on November 5, 1968 who won the election over the democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey.
This documentary highlighted the devastating consequences that these mandatory minimum sentencing’s can have on people such as in the case of Kemba Smith and Johnny Patillo, two first time offenders who were charged under the mandatory minimum sentencing’s. Johnny Patillo sentenced to serve 10 years and Kemba Smith sentenced to serve 24.5 years, these individuals were no different than your average citizen who got caught in the fire of these barbaric laws and individuals like these two are used as a deterant to send a message to the public in their efforts to take control of the war on drugs..
The complex issues of dealing with offenders in the criminal justice system has been a point of ongoing controversy, particularly in the arena of sentencing. In one camp there are those who believe offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law, while others advocate a more rehabilitative approach. The balancing act of max punishment for crimes committed, and rehabilitating the offender for reintegration into society has produced varying philosophies. With the emanation of drug-induced crimes over the past few decades, the concept of drug treatment courts has emerged. The premise of these courts is to offer a “treatment based alternative to prison,” which consist of intensive treatment services, random drug testing, incentives
to tear this law down I believe that California can not afford to do without
Young, M. G. (1998, July). Rethinking community resistance to prison siting: Results from a community impact assesment. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 323-325.
Drug policies stemming from the War on Drugs are to blame, more specifically, the mandatory minimum sentencing mandates on petty drug charges that have imprisoned millions of non-violent offenders in the last three decades. Since this declaration of war, the percentage of drug arrests that result in prison sentences (rather than probation, dismissal, or community service) has quadrupled, resulting in an unprecedented prison-building boom (Wyler, 2014). There are three main reasons mandatory minimum sentencing laws must be reformed: (1) They impose unduly harsh punishments on relatively low level offenders, leading to the mass incarceration epidemic. (2) They have proven to be cost ineffective fiscally and in crime and drug use reduction. (3) They perpetuate a racially segregated criminal justice system that destroys communities and discourages trust
Starting in 1970s, there has been an upward adjustment to sentencing making punishment more punitive and sentencing guidelines more strict. Martinson's (1974) meta-analyzies reviewed over 200 studies and concluded that nothing works in terms of rehabilitating prisoners. Rehabilitating efforts were discontinued. The War on Drugs campaign in 1970s incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders into the system. In 1865, 34.3% of prison population were imprisoned for drug violation. By 1995, the percentage grew to 59.9% (figure 4.1, 104). Legislation policies like the Third Strikes laws of 1994 have further the severity of sentencing. The shift from rehabilitation to human warehouse marks the end of an era of trying to reform individuals and the beginnings of locking inmates without preparation of their release. Along with the reform in the 1970s, prosecutors are given more discretion at the expense of judges. Prosecutors are often pressure to be tough on crime by the socie...
Mass incarceration has caused the prison’s populations to increase dramatically. The reason for this increase in population is because of the sentencing policies that put a lot of men and women in prison for an unjust amount of time. The prison population has be caused by periods of high crime rates, by the medias assembly line approach to the production of news stories that bend the truth of the crimes, and by political figures preying on citizens fear. For example, this fear can be seen in “Richard Nixon’s famous campaign call for “law and order” spoke to those fears, hostilities, and racist underpinnings” (Mauer pg. 52). This causes law enforcement to focus on crimes that involve violent crimes/offenders. Such as, gang members, drive by shootings, drug dealers, and serial killers. Instead of our law agencies focusing their attention on the fundamental causes of crime. Such as, why these crimes are committed, the family, and preventive services. These agencies choose to fight crime by establishing a “War On Drugs” and with “Get Tough” sentencing policies. These policies include “three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and juvenile waives laws which allows kids to be trialed as adults.
Today, half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes. Over half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes. Mass incarceration seems to be extremely expensive and a waste of money. It is believed to be a massive failure. Increased punishments and jailing have been declining in effectiveness for more than thirty years. Violent crime rates fell by more than fifty percent between 1991 and 2013, while property crime declined by forty-six percent, according to FBI statistics. Yet between 1990 and 2009, the prison population in the U.S. more than doubled, jumping from 771,243 to over 1.6 million (Nadia Prupis, 2015). While jailing may have at first had a positive result on the crime rate, it has reached a point of being less and less worth all the effort. Income growth and an aging population each had a greater effect on the decline in national crime rates than jailing. Mass incarceration and tough-on-crime policies have had huge social and money-related consequences--from its eighty billion dollars per-year price tag to its many societal costs, including an increased risk of recidivism due to barbarous conditions in prison and a lack of after-release reintegration opportunities. The government needs to rethink their strategy and their policies that are bad
laws is to keep the bad things out from the old society out such as
Woolley, John T., and Gerhard Peters. "Richard Nixon: Special Message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control." The American Presidency Project. The American Presidency Project, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
This quote from Dave Kelly shows many of the issues with the United State’s criminal justice system today. The prison population is increasing because prisoners are being taken in at a higher rate than they are released. Also these prisons have become dangerous; inmates are exposed to a great deal of violence inside prison walls. These problems do not result from stingy spending on the prisons, which can be seen from the billions of dollars that are thrown at prisons to keep U.S. citizens locked up. This dangerous and inefficient system must be reformed for the benefit of U.S. citizens that are involved in them whether through paying taxes or being in these prisons. Although the fear of punishment deters crime, United States criminal justice systems should focus on rehabilitation.
“I am convinced that imprisonment is a way of pretending to solve the problem of crime. It does nothing for the victims of crime, but perpetuates the idea of retribution, thus maintaining the endless cycle of violence in our culture. It is a cruel and useless substitute for the elimination of those conditions--poverty, unemployment, homelessness, desperation, racism, greed--which are at the root of most punished crime. The crimes of the rich and powerful go mostly unpunished.”
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.