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 …show more content…
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. 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 …show more content…
amend. VIII). Under minimum sentencing, the convicted are subject to longer and more severe prison sentencing and penalties than they would be without it (Task Force Urged 1). If an individual had been previously convicted, they would receive a harsher punishment for their current crime; according to Jay Casper, a political scientist that has studied the American legal system his entire career, “everyone convicted of other specified offenses with certain prior records, must be sentenced to prison, removing the judge’s discretion to impose lesser terms like jail, probation, or whatever” (White 1). In the case of United States v. Tony Greg, Tony Allen Greg was not a threat to society, but he was given a lifelong prison sentence for possession of cocaine because it was his third drug-related felony (Dahl 7). Because minimum sentencing conflicts with Amendment VI and Amendment VIII of the Bill of Rights, it is therefore unconstitutional and does not belong in the US judicial
One of the problems with the law is its principle of removing judicial discretion. This severely hinders a judge's ability to make a punishment fit the crime. While some felons deserve life in prison, it is unfair to create a standard that would force judges to sentence offenders to life imprisonment for relatively minor crimes.
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 first problem the proposal is its principle of removing judicial discretion, severely hindering a judge's ability to make the punishment fit the crime. One man in Washington is faced with life in prison if convicted of his third felony: stealing $120 from a sandwich shop by putting his finger in his pocket and pretending to have a gun. His prior two convictions were for similar crimes. While it is certainly true that some incorrigible felons deserve life in prison, it is patently unfair to create a sweeping standard that would force the courts to sentence offenders to life imprisonment for relatively minor crimes. The three-strikes law gives a judge no discretion in cases like that of the Washington man, or Michael.
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.
“The Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that one of the three objectives Congress sought to achieve in enacting the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was “reasonable uniformity” in sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal offenses committed by similar offenders (Spohn, 2013).”
Mandatory minimums and three strike laws, are they really the answer to the crime problem America has faced for years? Many would say yes, including me, as long as it is for a violent crime such as murder, rape or arson; some feel that even theft, drug trafficking or possession, and burglary are all worthy of the 25-to-life sentence that can be carried under the mandatory minimums for three strike laws. A three-strike law is a law that states that you will be sentenced to 25years to life for three violations and convictions of a law. Where the three strike laws have mandatory sentences, mandatory sentences aren’t always tied in with three strike laws. A mandatory minimum is a law that requires someone serve a predetermined amount of time in prison for specific offenses and the only way to have it reduced is by assisting the authorities in further convictions of others. In California a man was sentenced under the three strike laws for theft because he had two prior convictions. This man had been convicted of robbery and attempted robbery; therefore the slice of pizza he stole got him 25 years to life in prison (Lungren Trumpets ‘Three Strikes’ Law). Yes now, in California, you can be sent to prison for life if you take a slice of pizza from someone.
...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.
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.
Mandatory Minimum sentencing has been around since the late 1700's for very heinous crimes like murder and rape; but since the mid-1980's, mandatory minimum sentences have become increasingly more popular, with figures on both ends of the political spectrum backing bills proposing a mandatory minimum sentence for non-violent crimes, especially for crimes relating to the war against illegal drugs (Mascharka). Even with many people voicing their opposition to these laws, many states, even today, still continue to pass new, similar laws, targeting different types of offenders for different types of crimes. These sentences, while once useful, are creating more harm than good, causing the United States to become the global leader in incarceration rate, surpassing most other nations by over 6 percent (Mascharka). Carl M. Cannon believes that the abolishment of these laws would be good for the United States, by reducing the number of incarcerated peoples we have on the streets, which would reduce taxes for U.S citizens. Cannon has clearly done his research, and his data backs up his claim and supports it extremely well.
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.
The justice system in America is a failure and should be immediately reformed to a more standardized system that encourages reform over punishment. This is clearly evidenced by the 76.6% of prisoners that are rearrested within five years of release, the inequality of sentencing based on race or socioeconomic class, and the widely varying prison terms, which in many cases do not fit the crimes committed.
Mandatory sentences can be an effective means of dissuasion because people know that they are facing a minimum amount of time just for committing the single crime, and it can only go up from there. It also ensures that people serve their full sentence and do not get off easily because of good behavior or parole. Mandatory sentences can also lead to unjust punishment for crimes because they do not take into account the circumstances and situations
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
Echols won a district wide writing contest, he worked in the community with at risk youth. He received a two decade sentence for having drugs, money, and an unloaded rifle. In his case Echols was forced into selling drugs by the poor economy and not being able to find a job. He sold drugs to take care of his family and to put himself through school. He was nonviolent, did not have a record, and was a model in the community but due to his circumstances which left him no other choice but to sell drugs. If there was more money put into communities like Echols community, and not into prisons, Echols would have had a chance to a better life with his family. The judge was forced to by these sentencing laws to sentence Echols to 20 years after finding 44 grams of crack, almost 6,000 dollars to pay for school, and a rifle that had never been loaded. His lawyer argued that his case could have resulted in a probation term, but the Mandatory Minimums sentenced Echols 10 years for the drugs and another 10 years for the rifle. A heartbreaking case where a man who wanted to provide for his family, go to school, fell into tough times, and had no other choice but to sell drugs. His wife also spent all their savings in legal fees and lawyers. Mandatory Minimums not only sentenced him to 20 years, but also his family. His daughter is going to be without a
There are many reasons supporting that shorter sentences are better than longer sentences. Firstly, some people who were put into prison could commit a crime just because of impulsion. According to a recent research on China Daily says that about 57% of criminal who were investigated are under twenty years old. And only 10% of them of education are higher than primary school. It means that the cause of their crime are not only from themselves but also from the situation of their family, the development of economics and the degree of the society. Perhaps they commit a crime just because of curiosity, the lack of education. Shorter sentences can give them a chance to turn over a new page . After the sentences, they can get more education. So the motivation should be an important standard to judge a crime.