The Attack. The power that mandatory minimum sentences were thought to have eliminated has not come to fruition. The disparities have not been eliminated, rather they have simply shifted discretion from magistrates to prosecutors.[1] Prosecutors have the ultimate discretion over what charges to bring against the defendant. This includes whether or not they chose to charge the defendant with a violation in accordance with a mandatory minimum sentence, in addition to deciding whether to negotiate plea-bargaining. The training of prosecutors does not include deciding sentencing, which prevents the prosecutors from realizing the long term affects of what they are trying to achieve. Mandatory minimum sentences in short, do not reduce crime. Professor Michael Tonry from University of Minnesota Law stated, “the weight of the evidence clearly shows that enactment of mandatory …show more content…
It is often believed that arrest and its subsequent steps are a greater deterrent than the severity of the punishment itself. A typical one-year sentence has now been increased to a five-year sentence based on these mandatory sentencing laws. Those extra four years, in turn, inflict continued pain. The emotional and physical toll of being behind bars can change ones whole life and even take away time they will never have back. Mandatory sentencing recently dictated that a teenager serve 15 years behind bars for selling drugs to a undercover. Is this really justice? A teenager being sentenced for a term that some murderers get? This can be the beginning of the end for their life. [5] In addition, mandatory minimum sentencing laws can turn the typical low-level offender into a more dangerous criminal. While the low-level offender may have been incarcerated at first only for drugs, after additional years in jail they may learn new skills that will cause them to become more dangerous to the public on their
In Canada, over two-dozen offences in the Criminal Code carry mandatory minimum sentences. These offences include first and second-degree murder, a series of firearm-related offences, impaired driving and related offences, high treason, and gambling offences (Gabor and Crutcher 2001). Although there are so many crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences, they are not the best way to reduce crime in Canada.
The arguments against mandatory sentencing are that its not eliminating disparities or discretion and those they have shifted that discretion from the judges to the prosecutors. People contend that mandatory sentencing does not reduce crime. Law professor Michael Tonry at the university of Minnesota concluded
The majority of prisoners incarcerated in America are non-violent offenders. This is due mainly to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which is a method of prosecution that gives offenders a set amount of prison time for a crime they commit if it falls under one of these laws, regardless of their individual case analysis. These laws began in the 1980s, when the use of illegal drugs was hitting an all time high (Conyers 379). The United States began enacting legislature that called for minimum sentencing in an effort to combat this “war on drugs.” Many of these laws give long sentences to first time offenders (Conyers). The “three strikes” law states that people convicted of drug crimes on three separate occasions can face life in prison. These laws were passed for political gain, as the American public was swept into the belief that the laws would do nothing other than help end the rampant drug crimes in the country. The laws are still in effect today, and have not succeeded to discourage people from using drugs. Almost fifty percent...
Since the 1980s, the federal prison population of the US has grown from 24,640 to 214,149 (Population Statistics 1). This figure may appear miniscule given the fact that there are over 300 million people residing within the United States. However, this is just one figure of many; currently, the United States holds the largest prison population total out of any country at 2,217,000 (Prison Population Total 1). This major increase in incarceration is not the product of a higher crime rate, but due to the creation of sentencing guidelines that followed the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. These guidelines require that certain federal and state crimes result in a set minimum of years in prison. The minimum sentencing guidelines
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...
In the New York Times article, “Safety and Justice Complement Each Other,” by Glenn E. Martin, the author informs, “The Vera Institute for Justice found a 36 percent recidivism rate for individuals who had completed alternative drug programs in New York City, compared with 54 sentenced to prison, jail, probation or time served.” Alternative programs are more likely to inhibit future criminal acts, while incarceration seems to lack long-lasting effects on individuals. In continuance, the author adds that 3 percent of treatment participants were rearrested for violent crimes, while 6 percent of untreated criminals were rearrested for violent crimes. Diversion programs are able to treat one’s motivation for their criminal acts, rather than assuming that illegal habits will go away with time. Instead of sending nonviolent offenders to jail, legislators should consider introducing practical
The inappropriate or unnecessary use of incarceration is “expensive, ineffective, and inhumane,” and initiates a “cycle of juvenile reoffending” (Bala et. al, 2009). A study conducted by Mann (2014) exemplifies this cycle of youth reoffending. The youth interviewed demonstrated that despite a stay in sentenced custody, the threat of future punishment was not enough to deter from future offences. Cook and Roesch (2012) demonstrate that youth have developmental limitations that can impair their involvement in the justice system; for example, not understanding their sentencing options properly or their competence to stand trial. Therefore, deterrence as a justification for youth incarceration is ineffective, as incarceration proves to be not a strong enough deterrent. Alternative methods such as extrajudicial measures and community-based sanctions were considered more effective (Cook & Roesch,
I believe we can all look at the reasoning behind the formation of the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) and agree it’s a good idea to have consistent penalties for crimes. Obviously, try to be fair and consistent, is the right thing to do. Many of us grew up with sibling or have children and understand the importance of this. If one child is treated differently, it becomes a big issue. This could also lead to perceived favoritism, or bias. As we know, this also carries into the work place and is seen the same way when bosses treat employees differently.
No matter the recent trend for politicians to be outspoken in their disapproval of mandatory minimum sentences, the issue is a complex one with both benefits and disadvantages. Prior to doing research on the topic, I didn’t have much of an opinion regarding mandatory minimums and did not fully grasp the important role they play in contributing to the United States’ overpopulated prisons. As I began my research on the topic, I found an abundance of resources presenting the negative aspects of mandatory minimums, and initially I agreed with many of the points being made, however, as I continued to research the issue I came to realize the complexity of the matter, with compelling arguments on both sides of the debate. I recognize that there are
Intermediate sanctions are a new punishment option developed to fill the gap between traditional probation and traditional jail or prison sentences and to better match the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the crime. Intermediate sanctions served in the community now account for 15 percent of adjudicated juvenile cases (Puzzanchera, Adams, and Sickmund, 2011). All intermediate sanctions are enforced by the United States Criminal Justice System. The main purposes of intermediate sanctions: (1) better match the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the crime, (2) reduce institutional crowding, (3) control correctional costs. Primarily, this is a needed method of punishment to make offenders accountable for the extent of crime and if so let offenders live in their communities to fulfil punishment if not too extensive.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, violent crime is defined by four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (FBI, 2007). Defeating the threat of violent offenders is important to the safety of society. Many can agree safety is important; however holding offenders accountable varies from state to state. Traditionally, there has been disparity among sentencing violent offenders. One way to reduce this disparity is to have uniform guidance to help judges determine the appropriate sentences a violent offender should receive. Many have argued against the perceived truth in sentences, when violators are being released without serving the majority of their sentences.
Jones, C. (2009). Ineffective, Unjust and Inhumane: Mandatory Prison Sentences for Drug Offences. The John Howard Society of Canada.
One pro to mandatory sentencing is that it helps to remove personal bias. In other words it is a fair approach that is equally applied to all participants who are charged with the same crime. Another pro to mandatory sentencing is it emphasizes the “tough on crime” method. This guarantees that punishments for certain crimes are all the same throughout the judicial system and that punishments are not looked at as being too lenient. One more pro to mandatory sentencing is, it can lead to a drop in crime rates. For instance, if one individual commits a crime and the punishment is harsh enough, another person may not commit the same crime, seeing as the punishment is severe.
...cross the United States; however, there are times when these sentences are not appropriate. Laws such as the “three-strikes-you’re-out” law and Title 18 U.S.C. 924(c) often create sentences that can be overbearing and extremely harsh. Therefore, judges and prosecutors have found ways in order to “get around” imposing mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Although this is usually considered to be a positive practice, it has also been known to create more issues within the criminal justice system. Thus, there is a need for further research to be completed with regards to the issues surrounding mandatory minimum sentencing laws and how they disallow for discretion within cases involving different circumstances. Applying ethical principles such as formalism can be useful; however, it does not completely solve the problem of unjustified mandatory minimum sentences.
For many years, there have been a huge debate on the ideal of reform versus punishment. Many of these debates consist of the treatment and conditioning of individuals serving time in prison. Should prison facilities be a place solely to derogate freewill and punish prisoners as a design ideology of deterrence? Should prison facilities be design for rehabilitation and conditioning, aim to educate prisoners to integrate back into society.