Mandatory minimum sentencing started with good intentions; to restrict the unlimited sentencing discretion of judges. This unlimited power often gave way to a large disparity among sentences that involved similar circumstances. However mandatory minimums have only switched that power from the judges to legal prosecutors. While judges almost unanimously dislike this restriction on their powers, prosecutors are taking their newfound abilities in stride. Some would even say they are abusing the power beholden to them for personal gains. Fortunately most of the public has agreed that these laws are incredibly unfair and deprive defendants of a fair trial. When these laws were first introduced in the 80’s, members of both parties supported them in a rare case of bipartisanism. In recent years that sentiment has changed, and now lawmakers and legislators are hearing the public outcry for reform. Legislators are now …show more content…
During the 19th and 20th century, federal judges had essentially unconstrained sentencing discretion. This gave way to large disparities between the sentencing of certain cases that were almost identical. To amend this, Congress modified the federal sentencing process through the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This act helped take power away from district courts as well as establish the United States Sentencing Commission; which regulated the small amount of discretion the district courts still held. District courts no longer were able to exercise leniency as the USSC imposed mandatory minimum sentencing for certain types of crime. Two years later, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which imposed minimum sentencing for violations of federally controlled substance laws. This trend has continued, covering different crimes such as child pornography and identity
After viewing the documentary: America's War on Drugs - The Prison Industrial Complex, it is clear that the Criminal Justice System is in desperate need of reconstruction and repair with policies such as the mandatory minimum sentencing act which has proven to be unsuccessful and unjust in its efforts to deter 'criminals from committing illegal acts' as seen with the increase of incarcerations of the American people and the devastating effect it has had on those in prison and the family members of those incarcerated.
For a majority of the 20th century, sentencing policies had a minimal effect on social inequality (Western and Pettit 2002). In the early 1970s, this began to change when stricter sentencing policies were enacted (Western and Pettit 2002). Sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three-strikes laws were enacted with the purpose of achieving greater consistency, certainty, and severity in sentencing (National Research Council 2014). Numerous inequalities involving race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status have generated an unprecedented rate of incarceration in America, especially among minority populations (Western and Pettit 2010). With numerous social inequalities currently
Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 in response to concerns over federal sentencing disparities. The Act created the U.S. Sentencing Commission as an independent commission of the judicial branch. The commission would give seven members nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The sentencing guidelines of the commission were met with constitutional disagreement by the federal courts. John Mistretta, was convicted of three counts of selling cocaine and sentences under the guidelines of the Act. He challenged his sentence and the Act itself as violative of the delegation of powers principle because the sentencing commission was given “excessive legislative authority.” Mistretta argued that the constitution limits judges to deciding only actual cases or controversies and that the delegation of power to the
On the other hand, a number of parities also support mandatory sentencing terms of imprisonment. These parties believe that mandatory minimum sentencing will eliminate dishonesty that characterized sentencing in the 20th century. The whole process demonstrated dishonesty and sarcasm, which crumbles the professional and public respect necessary for the criminal Justice system to be deemed a morally defensive exercise of governmental
Mandatory minimum sentences make up a large proportion of the criminal penalties in Canada; yet, there is little reliable evidence showing that variations in the severity of punishment have a substantial deterrent effect (Durlauf, Steven N., Nagin, and Daniel S. 2011). Mandatory minimum sentences also create harsher penalties for crimes that don’t deserve it, and don’t take into account the scenario in which these crimes were committed (Gabor, Thomas 2001). For example, the inflexibilities for crimes such as murder in certain contexts. An instance such as a spouse kills her tormentor in a premeditated fashion. Crimes like this are almost always prompted by severe treats to the spouse’s life, or the life of their children (Gabor, Thomas 2001).
There are differences between state and federal sentencing guidelines. The federal guidelines are very vast and complicated (Leonard-Kempf and Sample 2001 p.113). These guidelines have been amended many times over the course of the past 25 years. According to Gazal-Ayal, Turjeman and Fishman (2013 p. 131) judges have historically had the weight and responsibility to sentence criminals in the way that they see fit. Some judges have abused this responsibility leading to the creation of sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Reform Act was passed in 1984 in order to place strict guidelines on the judge’s discretion during sentencing (Rehavi and Starr 2013 p. 11). The United States Sentencing Committee wanted to keep the judge’s personal opinions and beliefs separate from the courtroom in order to create fair sentences. The creation of sentencing guidelines keeps people involved in the sentencing process in check.
Minimum sentencing is unconstitutional because it conflicts with Amendment VI and Amendment VIII of the US Constitution. Amendment VI states, “in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant is entitled to an impartial jury, witnesses for and against him, and an attorney” (US Const. amend. VI). Minimum sentencing violates an individual’s right to a jury trial by requiring prerequisite criminal charges to result in a higher adjustment of the guideline range, which in consequence results in a longer prison sentence for the individual (Bowman 5). In United
Felman (2012) explains this by saying “in the last twenty-five years since the advent of mandatory sentences for drug offenses and the Sentencing Guidelines, the average federal sentence has roughly tripled in length” (p. 369). The development of these guidelines indicates that for the same crimes that individuals committed previously, they are now receiving longer sentences. Mandatory sentencing also suggests that no matter an individual’s circumstance, they will receive the same punishment as everyone else. Although this is a step towards the impartiality that the criminal justice system is constantly seeking, there are certain issues that have been found with what can be deemed as harsh, mandatory
Mandatory minimum sentences have existed within the United States since the beginning of legislation. When these laws were finally enforced, death was required for all felony crimes, however, only a small handful of these offenders were actually executed. During the 1980’s, the use of mandatory minimum sentencing laws increased during the “war on drugs” (Greenblatt, 2008). According to Greenblatt (2008, p. 3) “by 2007, Congress had enacted 171 mandatory minimum sentences. Of the 171 mandatory minimum sentence laws, many are rarely used.” Altogether, there were not many noted convictions under the mandatory minimum statutes (Greenblatt, 2008). Although many of the laws had not been invoked, several states have begun passing one specific type ...
The United States enacted mandatory minimum sentences for drug convictions beginning in 1951 with the Boggs Act. The Boggs Act provided both mandatory minimum sentences for first-time drug convictions and it increased the length of sentences for subsequent convictions. In 1956, the Narcotics Control Act increased the minimum sentences spelled out in the Boggs Act. It also forbade judges from suspending sentences or imposing probation in cases where they felt a prison sentence was inappropriate. In 1970, the Nixon Administration and Congress negotiated a bill that sought to address drug addiction through rehabilitation; provide better tools for law enforcement in the fight against drug trafficking and manufacturing; and provide a more balanced scheme of penalties for drug crimes. The final product, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, repealed man...
Mandatory minimum sentencing is the practice of requiring a predetermined prison sentence for certain crimes. The most notable mandatory minimums are the ones implemented in the 70’s and 80’s, hoping to combat the rising drug problem. Mandatory minimum sentencing has existed in the United States nearly since its very birth, with the first mandatory minimums being put into place around 1790. Recently, as the marijuana laws of many states have scaled back in severity, the issue of mandatory minimums has caused controversy in the US. There are two distinct sides to the argument surrounding mandatory minimum sentencing. One group believes we have a moral obligation to our country requiring us to do no less than lock up anyone with illegal drugs
... or appointed to their positions because of our supposed confidence in their impartial views when it comes to dispensing justice. However, the trend in the past few years has been for legislatures to minimize the discretion given to judges at sentencing, partly in an attempt to treat similar defendants more similarly and to avoid the effect of rogue judges. These policies have effectively taken some of the important discretion away from the very people who are supposed to be the most intimately involved in our due process. Legislators are too far removed from this process to be mandating broad strokes of punishment without considering each and every case on its merits. If we want to improve our criminal justice system and develop a long-term strategy for addressing the overcrowding in our prisons, then both "3 Strikes Laws" and Mandatory Minimums must be changed.
Traditionally judges were allowed to weigh the facts of a case when determining sentencing, but since the passing of the mandatory sentencing laws judges no longer have any discretion in these matters. It was believed that the mandatory sentencing would catch the upper end of those in the drug trade and discourage others from starting to participate in it. Unfortunately it catches mostly lower level individuals and has not discouraged people from the use or selling of drugs, leaving judges caught with imposing penalties that many of them have come to resent. These penalties are stiff, mandated by Congress and are tied to the type and weight of the drug as well as if there was a firearm (legal or not) present, most of the entry level sentences are five to 10 years. Another problem with the mandatory sentencing is there are only two ways to reduce or avoid it. First is to implement another person or in some way provide “substantial assistance” to the government. The second way is a safety valve which has such a ...
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
Though these polices are effective in decreasing the amount of crimes committed, they are often criticized for being harsh to those who commit nonviolent offenses such as drug crimes. According to Wallace (1993), mandatory sentencing takes away the judge’s discretion and allows the prosecution to possess more power within the courtroom. This may be especially true for cases in which the defendant can provide the prosecution with assistance for another case or for another participant in the crime. The prosecutor uses the defendant for information in exchange for shorter sentences, swinging the case in the prosecutions favor, and leaving other defendants without useful information at a