Mandatory minimum sentencing laws have gained popularity in the United States over the last couple of decades. By the early 1990’s, these laws existed in all 50 states (Bjerk, 2005). The purpose of these laws seems to be aimed at creating lengthier sentences for repeat offenders; however, these laws have also been known to cause unintended consequences within the criminal justice system (Bjerk, 2005). Persons involved in the judicial process (such as judges and prosecutors) have come to realize these discrepancies within the mandatory minimum laws and have learned to circumvent them (sometimes causing further discrepancies). When working within the court system, a person encounters mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and on occasion, the need for mitigation/departure from the guidelines. Depending on how judicial personnel decide to “mitigate” the circumstances, one must consider ethical principles (such as formalism) in order to determine how to deal with these types of situations. 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 ... ... middle of paper ... ...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.
One of the most controversial laws in the efforts to reduce crime has been the "three-strikes" laws that have been enacted. This law, which is already in twenty-seven states, requires that offenders convicted of three violent crimes be sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole. The law is based on the idea that the majority of felonies are committed by about 6% of hard core criminals and that crime can be eliminated by getting these criminals off the streets. Unfortunately, the law fails to take into account its own flaws and how it is implemented.
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..
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
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...
The criminal justice system has been in place the United States for centuries. The system has endured many changes throughout the ages. The need for a checks and balances system has been a priority for just as long. Federal sentencing guidelines were created to help create equal punishments among offenders. Judges are given the power of sentencing and they are not immune to opinions, bias, and feelings. These guidelines are set in place to allow the judge to keep their power but keep them within a control group of equality. Although there are a lot of pros to sentencing guidelines there are also a lot of cons. Research has shown that sentencing guidelines have allowed the power to shift from judges to prosecutors and led to sentencing disparity based on sex, race, and social class.
Following the murders of two young girls, both killed by repeat offenders, the people of California decided it was time to eradicate recidivism and crack down on crime. The general view was that violent criminals needed to be kept in prison where they could not harm the public, and the existing criminal justice system was not doing enough to deter crime. Out of this wave of moral outrage came what was to be the harshest sentencing legislation in the country.
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
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...
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
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
Whether or not Supermax prisons, short for super-maximum security prisons, are more crucial and longer lasting, the question has been if these prisons are useful in applying lessons learned into criminals. Supermax prisons hold some of the most dangerous criminals convicted. Supermax prisons have been known to have their pros and cons. The common pros of supermax prisons was the separation of gangs as well as many other prisoners who act out in violence commonly. Although many may say that these kind of prisons are considered “concentration” and “dispersion”, supermax prisons are often needed to maintain relief of the criminals not acting out. The effectiveness of supermax prisons is what many debate on, which have made many different arguments
By law, minimum sentencing is set for certain crimes for which judges can’t lower under any circumstances. It requires that offenders serve a predetermined sentence for certain crimes. Since the 18 century, congress has been using minimum sentencing. The Constitution authorized Congress to establish criminal offenses and to set the punishments for offences such as murder, treason and to address immediate problems and needs. Congress enacted the first mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment as a response to strained relationships between the United States and France. “In preparation for a possible war with France, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, which among other provisions created a new offense of opposing
In today’s society, the level of punishment for crimes are decided and applied by the laws of every country. However, in recent years there has been an increasing sense that the punishments applied are imbalanced and do not always prevent people from repeating their crimes.
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.
...rounding individual offender needs and courtroom management and organizational concerns. Although courtroom actor reliance on different focal concerns is theorized to be uniform across jurisdictions, the relative emphasis and subjective interpretation of these considerations is likely to vary across court communities (Ulmer and Johnson, 2004). This is because "the meaning, relative emphasis and priority, and situational interpretations of them is embedded in local court community culture, organizational contexts, and politics" that vary across courts (Kramer and Ulmer, 2002: 903). From this perspective, judicial departures can be understood as the result of the complex interplay between formally rational guideline recommendations and substantively rational sentencing concerns, based on varying interpretations of different focal concerns across courtroom communities.