Mandatory minimum prison sentences are punishments that are set through legislation for specific offenses. They have been used throughout history for different crimes. The four traditional goals of punishment are: deterrence, incapacitation (incarceration), retribution, and rehabilitation. With the state of our national economy, cutting prison and corrections costs would be a huge savings. On the surface, it may seem that mandatory minimum sentences would serve the traditional goals of punishment. They would discourage potential criminals, keep society safe for longer periods of time, they would punish the offender and they would rehabilitate the offender. What they did not do, however, is take into account the individual circumstances of each case and each defendant. Mandatory minimum sentences are not effective and they should be repealed.
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 The final product, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, repealed man...
... middle of paper ...
...tp://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/2009/01/a_brief_history_of_federal_man.html
History of Mandatory Minimums. (2005, August 31). [Brochure]. Retrieved from
http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Updates%20short%20HISTORY.pdf
Mandatory Minimum Sentences [Briefing]. (n.d.). Retrieved August 2, 2010, from
Connecticut General Assembly website: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pridata/Studies/Mandatory_Minimum_Sentences_Briefing.htm
McVay, D., Schuraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (n.d.). Treatment or Incarceration?
Retrieved from Justice Policy Institute website:
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/04-01_REP_MDTreatmentorIncarceration_AC-DP.pdf
Sabol, W. J., PhD., & Couture, H. (2008, June). Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007
(NCJ No. 3221994). Retrieved from US Department of Justice website: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pim07.pdf
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..
If you get caught with narcotics, your sentencing depends on the amount you are caught with, for example, crack cocaine is five years, for five grams. Powder cocaine is five years for five hundred grams, heroin is five years for one hundred grams, methamphetamine is five years for ten grams, PCP is five years for ten grams, this is not what high level drug traffickers are involved in. most drug cases involve low level offenders. It all depends on the amount you have on you, while you get caught with the controlled substance. There was a mandatory minimum sentences were criticized by the U.S. sentencing commission as early as 1991. In the report they found that all defense lawyers, and nearly half of the prosecutors, they all seemed to have a problem with mandatory minimum sentences. They would try there hardest to get away from the mandatory minimum
Sentencing is an extremely individualized basis, which should be treated as such (Pomerance, Renee M, 2013). The causes and effects of each individual situation cannot possibly be summed up into one punishment. Judges are extremely good at their job, and should be able to supply punishments that they believe are fair and just for each individual incident. Canada does not need so many mandatory minimum sentences, and should be allowing the judges to do their job, by using their own discretion. By allowing the judges to think for themselves, and use past judgements on certain cases, Canada will have a much more fair and democratic criminal justice program. Therefore, causing the crime rates to eventually
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...
Criminals are deterred from pleading guilty because minimum sentencing guarantees a harsh punishment, which in turn costs time and money by prolonging court cases. Minimum sentencing should not be mandatory because it is unconstitutional, does not deter crime, and is not cost-effective.
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...
However, before the specific outcomes of Congressional influence and policy impact can be evaluated it becomes important to first review the general history and current situation of drugs today. Our present drug laws were first enacted at the beginning of the century. At the time, recreational use of narcotics was not a major social issue. The first regulatory legislation was for the purpose of standardizing the manufacturing and purity of pharmaceutical products. Shortly after, the first criminal laws were enacted which addressed opium products and cocaine. Although some states had prohibited the recreational use of marijuana, there was no federal criminal legislation until 1937. By contrast, the use of alcohol and its legality was a major social issue in United States in the early 20th century. This temperance movement culminated in the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. Recreational drug use, particularly heroin, became more prevalent among the urban poor during the early ?60s. Because of the high cost of heroin and its uncertain purity, its use was associated with crime and frequent overdoses.
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
In 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” He substantially increased the presence and size of federal drug agencies, and passed legislation like mandatory sentencing laws and unconstitutional warrants. Nixon even listed marijuana as a Schedule One drug, the most constrictive drug category. Over forty years later, the U.S is still waging a war on drugs, spending billions of dollars per year and creating major social issues.
The purpose of the prison system was meant to be a deterrent to crime, as a preventative measure and to those who have already committed crimes, it is supposed to keep them from coming back. Obviously this did not work, today there are overcrowded jails and courts that look to any other way to punish a criminal besides jail time. The other options do not work either, they have not reduced the prison population nor have they created a sort of fear of being punished that a tougher system might do(Faugeron 5). I think the prison system should be made tougher, and that the alternatives to prison be used in cases where the crime was very small and the criminal would benefit from some other form of punishment than prison. If the criminal has done something so bad as to end up in prison I would expect that they were being treated in a just fashion. Instead of the system trying to teach inmates a lesson there's a law that says that "a convicted offender retains all the rights which citizens in general have, except such as must be limited or forfeited to make it possible to administer a correctional or federal agency"(Hawkins 135). In short they are real citizens except that the correctional facility decides when they eat and sleep. I think all prisons should take away the special privileges of prisoners because the system is supposed to deter criminals from committing crimes and instead are inviting them for extended visits. The only way criminals are going to get the point is by creating a prison system that does not allow anything special for the people who have committed crimes and gets back the root of the purpose for having prisons.
Mandatory minimum sentence is a law that is one of the most popular. A crime that is committed and the recourse is mandatory minimum sentence the judge is not permitted to give a shorter sentence, even if the facts in the case would in some cases cause for a lesser sentence. “Judges are required to sentence any person convicted of one of these crimes to at least the mandatory term, regardless of the particular circumstances of the crime or the defendant’s criminal history” (Davis, A.J., 2016). But on the flip side, the judge is allowed ot give a longer or harsher sentence if the situation calls for one. An example of mandatory minimum sentencing regarding federal drug laws depends on how much of the substance the person is caught with. Another
The legislative changes that have affected the lengths of sentences being handed down are the minimum mandatory sentences, truth-in-sentencing laws, three strikes laws, sentencing guidelines, and sentencing enhancements. Policy changes and legislative changes have made longer sentences for certain offences. Minimum mandatory sentencing “laws set minimum sentences for certain crimes that judges cannot lower, even for extenuating circumstances. The most common of these laws deal with drug offenses and set mandatory minimum sentences for possession of a drug over a certain amount” (Attorneys.com, 2014). Mandatory minimum sentencing laws affect your sentence by giving judges guidelines to follow when setting your punishment. Judges have “less discretion in setting your
... the outcomes of these goals the crime rate has substantially decreased. Revenge has made a way for some victims to at ease. I think revenge can be a good and bad thing. A negative view of revenge is if an offender kills or rapes someone's child and that person tries to find ways to get that offender killed. They all have some significant way of getting justice. According to the Sentencing Project prison cost has gone up and it is very expensive to find room in the prison for these offenders. Based on the overcrowded prison, they have to build new prisons which will take of money for the government.
The origin of the word prison comes from the Latin word to seize. It is fair to say that the traditionally use of prison correspond well with the origin of the word; as traditionally prison was a place for holding people whilst they were awaiting trail. Now, centuries on and prisons today is used as a very popular, and severe form of punishment offered to those that have been convicted. With the exception however, of the death penalty and corporal punishment that still takes place in some countries. Being that Prison is a very popular form of punishment used in today's society to tackle crime and punish offenders, this essay will then be examining whether prison works, by drawing on relevant sociological factors. Furthermore, it will be looking at whether punishment could be re-imagined, and if so, what would it entail?