the correctional system were incarcerated in jails or prisons, a jump from the year 2000 where there were the total correctional population was 6,467,800, and 1,945,400 were incarcerated (2015). The prison population in the united states is out of control and prisons are over their maximum occupancy, something needs to change to reduce the amount of incarcerated individuals. 23 May 2011, there was a supreme court ruling 5-4 that ruled the state of California was to reduce their prison population due
horror stories about drugs like crack-cocaine. From them, and probably from no other source, we learn that crack is immediately addictive in every case, we learn that it causes corruption, crazed violence, and almost always leads to death. The government tells us that we are busy fighting a war on drugs and so it gives us various iconic models to despise and detest : we learn to stereotype inner-city minorities as being of drug-infested wastelands and we learn to "witchhunt" drug users within our own
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
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was policy pushed into legislation on the heels of public outcry over the death of University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias. The basketball star, who two days earlier was drafted 2nd overall in the NBA draft, died of cocaine intoxication. Ten years prior, President Nixon declared a “War on Drugs” in America. He hoped that propaganda and social encouragement would move America to change its perception on drugs. Going so far to ask influential figures like Elvis
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
Are mandatory minimums and three-strike laws the solution to America's crime problem? Many, including myself, believe so, but only for violent crimes such as murder, rape, or arson. Some argue that even theft, drug trafficking or possession, and burglary are deserving of the 25-to-life sentence that can be imposed under mandatory minimums for three-strike laws. A three-strike law mandates a 25-year to life sentence for three violations and convictions of a law. While mandatory minimums are not always
Due to the high drug epidemic in the 1960’s and 1970’s there was a call to change the laws surrounding the penalties for drug possession. This began as an effort to reduce the sale and use of illicit drugs. This law was known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The law stated that if a person was in possession of four ounces of narcotics the minimum sentence would be fifteen years to life. This was approximately the same about of time as someone being sentenced for second-degree murder. This was one of
Bush's “war on drugs”, an extension to Reagon's former battle, had “crowded the courts, filled the prisons, corrupted law officers, compromised ... civil liberties, and criminalized substantial sectors of American society.” 1 In comparison to the leniency experienced in the late 1960s under Nixon where a “specific sub-culture of some 68,088 identifiable heroin addicts” who, subject to arrest for the possession of the heroin, and successfully convicted, were “sentenced to treatment at the federal
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 [the Act] was enacted for several reasons. One of the provisions of the act was to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for individuals who are convicted of possessing a particular amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Individuals convicted with possession of 5 grams of crack would receive a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison. Individuals convicted with possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine would receive the same 5 year mandatory minimum sentence
The minimum sentencing regarding drug crimes should be reduced because it negatively impacts everyone involved and is an unjust punishment across the board. I will discuss how the War on Drugs came about, how the current system for these crimes is racist and classist, the negative impacts that come from it across the board, the prison overcrowding issues, and how the minimum sentencing policy is ineffective. No matter how you look at it this issue, one wins in this situation and it’s time for a change
CNN stated, “One person dies every 19 minutes from a prescription drug overdose in the United States.” In an effort to combat misuse and abuse of prescription drugs, the Food and Drug Administration is proposing new restrictions that would change the rules for some normally prescribed narcotic painkillers (Bentz). The increase of addiction to prescription drugs has increased over the past few years. As a result the amount of pharmacy robberies has amplified as well. Certain patients are going to
illegal drugs, such as marijuana, opium, cocaine, and hallucinogens have been used for thousands of years for medical, personal, and spiritual purposes. In the 1960s, as drugs were becoming symbols of rebellion, social disorder, and political conflict. Why are some drugs legal and other drugs illegal today? It's not based on any scientific calculation and research of the relative risks of these drugs – but it has everything to do with who and what are associated with these drugs. The War on Drugs gives
Drug Testing Student Athletes Every athlete has probably at some point has been told to represent their school with class. Athletes are held to high standards, they are expected do the right thing on and off the field, and to lead others by setting a good example. As a role model for younger athletes and other students, should our athletes be required to prove they are being responsible even when no one is watching? Should we drug test all of our athletes to ensure they are making the right choices
Drug issue has always been a big issue troubling the whole world and the governments of all countries rack their brains to control drugs. In the past, people definitely held positive attitudes and thought the government should vigorously prohibit drugs and strictly crack down drug-related crimes. But the government’s prohibition of drugs turns out contrary to our expectation that drugs are more abused and the crimes following it also increase year by year. Therefore, people questioned the drug control
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are
are administered. Drug testing is a top priority in welfare reform and it should be; tax payers’ money should not be used for the purchase of illegal substances. The state of Texas and the United States face problems with misuse of welfare funds and there must be a change in the system in order to combat this. The purpose of welfare is to aid those that are in financial need to purchase the essentials required for survival. Individuals receiving welfare should subject to a drug test at any moment
the world of drugs because they have the ability to alter one’s perception of reality. L.S.D, MDMA, and psilocybin are three of the main types of psychedelics on the drug market, all three of which are listed as schedule 1 by the DEA. A schedule 1 drug is considered to have a high addiction risk, has no medical value whatsoever, and is illegal to have in your possession. A schedule 2 drug is considered to have the potential for both medical purposes, and abuse. A schedule 3 drug is considered
What are the links between drugs and crime and what can be done towards drug-related crimes? Drug culture has always been a key debate within sociology and has become even more integral as Drug Culture increases ever more in modern day, Western societies. It is estimated that in the U.K and Wales over twelve million people have consumed some kind of illicit drug with 5 million having admitting to using a Class A drug. These statistics seem startling for some and many link this to increasing crime
Middle schools are now sending permission slips for parent to allow their child to take a drug test before they can partake in any activity. Any activity such as scrapbooking or photography shouldn’t involve a test stating that students are drug free. The whole twelve to thirteen year olds being drugs tested controversy has started an uproar in parents. Parents understand that athletes have to be tested to prove they aren’t taking any dope but cannot wrap around their heads of their children having
In Favor of a More Liberal Drug Policy In William J. Bennett’s address entitled “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals,” Bennett maintains that the drug problem in America can be ultimately solved. In my opinion, the drug problem in America is one that cannot be completely resolved to the point where drug use no longer exists in America, but drug abuse can be alleviated. One effective way to do this would be to legalize the personal use of drugs that are more common and less potent (like marijuana)