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 …show more content…
In my eyes there are three main questions to be asked about mandatory minimum sentencing: For one, are mandatory minimum sentences fair? I do not mean this in the “Johnny got two cookies and I only got one” type of fair. When referring to fair, I am asking if we are giving our country’s judicial system the freedom to exercise all of their privileges and powers. Also, if compared to less heinous and more heinous crimes, are the mandatory minimums surrounding drug offences unjustly strict? The second question: What is the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on the criminal justice system and jails as a whole? Are other problems being created by mandatory minimums? Finally, I’d like to know what alternatives to mandatory minimums exist, and if they are more or less effective. It is very important to be able to look at angles of this issue and reassess our approach. It would make a lot of sense to change how criminal justice system if it is using outdated and ineffective …show more content…
We cannot afford to keep using the same approach in hopes of diminishing our drug problem in the United States. In a study posted on RAND.org, the author Jonathan P. Caulkins compares many methods we can use to help with drug crime. The first graph compares federal mandatory minimum sentences, conventional enforcement at all levels of government, and treatment of heavy users. Conventional enforcement prevented around thirty kilo grams of cocaine from being used, while federal mandatory minimums prevented around forty kilograms from being used. Treatment of heavy users blew both of the other methods out of the water. Treatment of heavy users dwarfs both other methods by preventing 110 kilograms of cocaine from being used. This shows that other methods besides jail can have an extremely positive effect on our country. Another graph in the same article shows that although longer sentences can drastically reduce the amount of cocaine used at first, over time it becomes extremely ineffective. This is because as the penalties for the crime become higher, the drug dealers raise their price according to the risk. By increasing the jail time, we are not only locking low risk people up for a long time; we are making drug cartels even more money than they were before. Also, through treatment, we would be able to change the culture surrounding drugs. If over time
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.
Although stricter prison sentences can have some effect on crime rate, some people speculate that it can also be defective. In the article entitled “Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences Waste Resource” the author of the article states, “There are nearly 12,000 people in New York’s ...
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...
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...
The gun mandatory minimum sentences potentially violate the Eighth Amendment that seeks to prohibit against cruel and unusual punishments such as the one in Weldon Angelos case. The mandatory minimum is a determinate sentencing where offenders are given a fixed term, the legislature fixes the penalty for offense categories and once a sanction is chosen and imposed it not subjected to change (Peak, 2013, p. 263). The judge in the Weldon case was bound by the minimum sentencing requirements which took the discretion to tailor a more fitting sentence for the first time drug offender.
Sentencing of a convicted criminal is ultimately in the hands of the judge. Although there are standards that may be suggested for a judge to follow that work in accordance with the crime committed, by no means is a judge required to follow those suggested standards when making a decision. In the end, the final verdict is left up to the judge presiding over the case and they can do with that how they feel fit. Which is why in the case of Rhonda Kuzak, the judge has decided to go a less conventional route with her punishment. Because of the previous convictions Kuzak has on her record, a simple fine and/or jail time will not be what the court ordered. Kuzak has been arrested and convicted three prior times for possession of drugs, cocaine to
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.
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.
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...
For police officers who want to solve more violent, severed cases, it is practically impossible for them to make as much as the officers making arrests for petty, nonviolent drug crimes. More often than not, law enforcement officers are paid based on the amount of arrests they pay. Why would an officer pursue more rape, murder, and burglary cases when they could simple make a few easy drug arrests and get paid the same amount or more with half the work? “The financial incentive built into the system virtually guarantee that the overwhelming majority of drug arrest in the United States will be for nonviolent, low-level drug offenses,” as stated by Michelle Alexander, a civil right advocate and writer. As the amount of petty, drug arrests for nonviolent offenses increases, the respect for police officers and the laws they’re trying to enforce is lost. Although it is not the officer’s fault to blame, the current judicial system pins them up as the bad guy. Making it so that the current system not only hurts those being convicted, but also all the law enforcement involved. With the way the system is set up now, it police officers unable to solve difficult crimes. Drug crimes are easy arrests, and the frequency of them makes causes a police officer’s ability to solve real, hard-hitting cases virtually nonexistent. As for the judges involved, the minimum sentencing requirements basically make it impossible for the judges to actually do their job. With the mandatory minimum sentencing for nonviolent drug crimes, it takes the judge’s ability to serve justice out of the equation. No matter what the individual case may be, there’s no way for an offender to get anything less than that of the mandatory minimum. It’s practically ridding these citizens of the right to a fair trial; seeing that no matter what the judge rules as fair,
Parole and mandatory minimum sentences are both controversial topics within the criminal justice system. “…to many Canadians, parole is the very definition of justice gone soft.” (Fine, 2016). Where mandatory minimums are more heavily supported by the community parole is often criticized. This is unjust because the adverse effects of a sentence without some type of reintegration back into society can be extremely harmful to the inmate and the community. “Parole is the system’s way of taking a calculated risk. Why take any risk at all? Because the alternative is seen to be worse: No incentive for good behaviour.”(Fine, 2016). This distrust in the parole system leads the public to support the idea of mandatory minimum sentences in the case of
Overcrowding in our state and federal jails today has become a big issue. Back in the 20th century, prison rates in the U.S were fairly low. During the years later due to economic and political factors, that rate began to rise. According to the Bureau of justice statistics, the amount of people in prison went from 139 per 100,000 inmates to 502 per 100,000 inmates from 1980 to 2009. That is nearly 261%. Over 2.1 million Americans are incarcerated and 7.2 million are either incarcerated or under parole. According to these statistics, the U.S has 25% of the world’s prisoners. (Rick Wilson pg.1) Our prison systems simply have too many people. To try and help fix this problem, there needs to be shorter sentences for smaller crimes. Based on the many people in jail at the moment, funding for prison has dropped tremendously.
Mandatory minimums, harsh prison sentences imposed on offenders by law, where discretion is limited. Offenders, most of the time nonviolent, are faced with prison terms that are meant for a drug kingpin, not a low level first or second time offender. Mandatory minimums have been proven not to be the answer in our criminal justice system and need to be changed. Mandatory Minimums has created a problem within our society where we send everyone to prison and don 't present offenders with better opportunities. We have turned into a society focused on retribution and deterrence, and have forgotten about rehabilitation.
I found that minimum mandatory sentencing does not reduce crime such as sentencing a lower level drug dealer to a mandatory sentence will not stop the drugs from getting to the street (Larkin & Bernick, 2014). They will just replace that dealer with a new dealer. I believe that the biggest reason that minimum mandatory sentencing does not work is that it is not cost effective to the court system or the correction system if shorter sentencings have the same effect as longer sentencings.
Our system is failing because “The U.S. prison population has more than quadrupled since the early 1980s: when mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drugs when into effect” (Borowski, 2016). this clearly depicts a failing system in need of reform. Millions of people are suffering due to a system that has been targeted at incarcerating people who commit low level crime or nonviolent crimes. We are truly living in a period of governance through crime which has only set fear on people and increase the prison population drastically. This system has been used since president Nixon took into office and instated his war on drugs that gave the birth to the huge problem of mass incarceration. ever since our nation has been governing through crime and people have been set with the fear that crime is on the