Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the importance of mandatory sentencing
the importance of mandatory sentencing
the importance of mandatory sentencing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the importance of mandatory sentencing
Mandatory Minimums: A National Injustice Mandatory minimum drug sentencing is legislation passed by Congress in 1986 to create harsher punishments for drug offenders. These laws were created at a time when drug use was beginning to rise dramatically. This type of sentencing was meant to impose harsh, excessive sentences on any type of drug offense, despite other circumstances. While these laws seem good in theory, they were not well thought out. The creators and supporters did not consider the negative consequences of these strict laws. The injustices of federal mandatory minimum sentences have been present for years in the United States justice system. These laws are costly, unjust and excessive in our society. First, the most obvious effect of mandatory minimums is what it costs our nation financially. The sentences of drug offenders are now extremely long, and keeping large numbers of people in jail for long amounts of time is very costly. The U.S. taxpayers are the ones suffering because they are the ones that are forced to pay for these increasing costs. The cost of keeping just one person in prison is incredible. The cost of imprisoning just one person is on average 23,000 dollars per year. It is less expensive to put someone through college for four years than it is to incarcerate someone for four years. The amount of U.S. tax dollars going towards prison costs is growing faster than all other federal funding. Everyday 4.14 million dollars of U.S. taxpayer money goes towards federal prisons and 1.51 billion dollars annually (Cruel). These costs are continually and dramatically increasing. From 1986, when mandatory minim... ... middle of paper ... ...adator.htm>. Easterbrook, Gregg. “Run On Sentencing.” New Republic 220.17 (1999): 57. Greider, William. “Mandatory Minimums: A National Disgrace.” Rolling Stone 784 (1998): 42. Marks, Alexandra. “Cost Concerns Drive States to Ease Tough Sentences for Some Drug Offenders.” Christian Science Monitor 89.113 (1997): 1. Risley, David. “Mandatory Minimum Sentences: An Overview.” May 2000. Drug Watch International. 27 Feb. 2005. . “Study: Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentencing Don’t Work.” 12 May 1997. CNN. 14 March 2005. . Williams, Pete. “Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: End Minimum Sentences.” 9 Aug. 2003. MSNBC.com. 27 Feb. 2003. .
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.
Mandatory sentencing refers to the practice of parliament setting a fixed penalty for the commission of a criminal offence. Mandatory sentencing was mainly introduced in Australia to: prevent crime, to incapacitate the offenders, to deter offenders so they don’t offend again, to create a stronger retribution and to eliminate inconsistency. There is a firm belief that the imposition of Mandatory sentencing for an offence will have a deterrent effect on the individual and will send a forcible message to the offenders. Those in favour argue that it will bring consistency in sentencing and conciliate public concern about crime and punishment.
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 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.
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
Felman (2012) explains this by saying “in the last twenty-five years since the advent of mandatory sentences for drug offenses and the Sentencing Guidelines, the average federal sentence has roughly tripled in length” (p. 369). The development of these guidelines indicates that for the same crimes that individuals committed previously, they are now receiving longer sentences. Mandatory sentencing also suggests that no matter an individual’s circumstance, they will receive the same punishment as everyone else. Although this is a step towards the impartiality that the criminal justice system is constantly seeking, there are certain issues that have been found with what can be deemed as harsh, mandatory
Due to the unfair sentencing disparity between crack and cocaine, despite the fact that the two are the same drug, just in different forms, the government endorsed a law to reduce the sentencing of those who were convicted of crack related offenses. Repealing past wrong doings seemed to be a hurdle initially for lawmakers, but ultimately inmates finally received some of the justice that they deserved. The disparity in sentencing was seen by many as to be a racial war, considering the fact that blacks typically used crack, and whites used powder cocaine. Even though they are in essence the same drug, just broken down into different forms.
It is the firm belief and position here that committing such a crime as murder is punishable by death. Americans should take a position for anyone on death row, to be executed sooner rather than later.
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.
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
The use of capital punishment is a contentious social issue in the United States. Currently, it is a legal sentence in thirty-two states and illegal in eighteen (States With and Without the Death Penalty). Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty is “the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime” (Oxford Dictionaries). A sentencing for the death penalty can be mete out due to a capital offense of treason, murder, arson, or rape. The most commonly used methods for capital punishment include lethal injection, handing, and electrocution. The act of capital punishment is unethical and immoral. Capital punishment is an ineffective method for penalizing criminals, and needs to be abolished from the United States’ criminal justice system.
The proliferation of harsh mandatory sentencing policies has inhibited the ability of courts to sentence offenders in a way that permits a more "problem solving" approach to crime, as we can see in the most recent community policing and drug court movements today. By eliminating any consideration of the factors contributing to crime and a range of responses, such sentencing policies fail to provide justice for all. Given the cutbacks in prison programming and rates of recidivism, in some cases over 60% or more, the increased use of incarceration in many respects represents a commitment to policies that are both ineffective and unfair. I believe in equal, fair and measured punishment for all. I don't advocate a soft, or a hard approach to punishment. But we must take a more pragmatic look at what the consequences of our actions are when we close our e...
his paper will seek to analyze the privatization of prisons in the American Criminal Justice Penal System. “Privatization” refers to both the takeover of existing public facilities by private operators and the building and operation of new and additional prisons by for-profit companies (Cheung, 2004). The developments of private prison were a huge result of mass incarceration in America. Therefore, this paper will first evaluate how private prisons are considered to be a solution to the problem of overcrowded prisons in the United States. Next, it will examine private prisons to investigate rather it was an enormous solution to the mass incarceration problem in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, it will seek to understand the idea that private prisons are less expensive to operate than public facilities operated by the state. Honestly, it will terminate the claim that private prisons cause an enormous economic growth, as development projects, in rural areas throughout the United States. Also, I will explain how the private prison industry has tremendously affected the black male and female rate of incarceration. Therefore, private prisons are not a feasible to the issue of mass incarceration; however, it does obstruct the reformation of mass incarceration by reinforcing the very same principles of the already faulty criminal justice system’s ideologies.
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
More are sentencing options are great because just like every person is different, so is the crime. Prison may not always be the most effective response for people, so If courts have options other than incarceration, “they can better tailor a cost-effective sentence that fits the offender and the crime, protects the public, and provides rehabilitation” (FAMM, 2011). Findings have also proven that alternative saves taxpayers money. “It costs over $28,000 to keep one person in federal prison for one year1 (some states’ prison costs are much higher). Alternatives to incarceration are cheaper, help prevent prison and jail overcrowding, and save taxpayers millions” (FAMM, 2011, para. 3). Lastly, alternatives protect the public by reducing crime. There is a 40% chance that all people leaving prison will go back within three years of their release (FAMM, 2011). “Alternatives to prison such as drug and mental health courts are proven to confront the underlying causes of crime (i.e., drug addiction and mental illness) and help prevent offenders from committing new crimes” (FAMM, 2011, para.