More handpicked essays just for you.
Effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences
The problem with mandatory minimums
Mandatory minimum sentencing issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“Mandatory minimum sentences are the product of good intentions, but good intentions do not always make good policy; good results are also necessary.”(Larkin, 2014) Mandatory minimum sentencing is the laws that require automatic, minimum prison terms of a particular length for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes. In other words, everyone who committed the same crime would have the same guaranteed sentence. This is an issue of grave national consequence and if America is the land of the free than how can we incarcerate the highest percentage of our population than any other nation? Mandatory Minimum sentencing is unfair because it prevents judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances, increases the amount of non-violent offenders in prison and targets minorities and low-income areas. For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, United State judges had virtually unlimited sentencing discretion. In the 1970s and 1980s, members of the legal establishment criticized that practice and in 1984 Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act, which modified the federal sentencing process (Larkin, 2014). Congress decided to eliminate the courts discretion to exercise leniency in some instances by requiring courts to impose a mandatory minimums …show more content…
Senate is considering two bills that would revise the federal sentencing laws in the case of mandatory minimum sentences. The Justice Safety Valve Act allows judges to exempt certain drug and other offender from mandatory minimum sentences. The other bill is The Smarter Sentencing Act, which permits a district judge to impose sentences without regard to any mandatory minimum if the court finds that the defendant has no more than two criminal history points. However this apples too only nonviolent drug crimes. Each bill would grant district courts greater discretion to depart downward from a mandatory minimum sentence, which is the best starting solution for this social
Federal sentencing law has been not justifiable and incapable of being defended against criticism or denial harsh for a generation, but in a particular conception and view of principles it has a showing restraint in a safety valve called compassionate release. The Sentencing Reform Act has given federal courts the ability to do and the capabilities of possession to bring down to number sentences of federal prisoners for curious and odd reasons, most likely a extremely bad illness.
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..
For a majority of the 20th century, sentencing policies had a minimal effect on social inequality (Western and Pettit 2002). In the early 1970s, this began to change when stricter sentencing policies were enacted (Western and Pettit 2002). Sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three-strikes laws were enacted with the purpose of achieving greater consistency, certainty, and severity in sentencing (National Research Council 2014). Numerous inequalities involving race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status have generated an unprecedented rate of incarceration in America, especially among minority populations (Western and Pettit 2010). With numerous social inequalities currently
A 1997 RAND Corporation study found that treatment of heavy drug users was almost ten times more cost effective in reducing drug use, sales, and drug-related crime than longer mandatory sentences (Echols, 2014). Other studies have shown that mandatory penalties have no demonstrable marginal or short-term effects on overall crime reduction either. Congress established mandatory sentences in order to incarcerate high-level drug criminals, but according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, only 11 percent of drug charged prisoners fit that description (Echols, 2014). Most of those incarcerated are low-level offenders, whose spots in drug trafficking are easily filled by other people. Mandatory minimum sentencing is essentially a waste of scarce criminal justice resources and federal funds that could be used elsewhere, and The Smarter Sentencing Act’s reduction of mandatory minimums can be the first step in eliminating minimum sentencing altogether. Ideally, given the opportunity for discretion, judges would be more inclined to issue more effective alternatives to incarceration, such as rehabilitation programs and/or
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 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).”
The Judiciary Branch of the United States government is responsible for interpreting the law. Those involved with this branch determine the meaning of the laws and decide what to do with those who break them. Because of a drug movement that took place through the 1980s, the courts have severely punished those who break laws associated to drugs; Congress is now trying to step in to change the way the Judiciary Branch is forced to punish such criminals. Congress has been busy the past couple of years evaluating the proper sentencing of those convicted of drug crimes. Many men and women of Congress are joining forces in an attempt to come up with a solution to propose as an amendment. Our elected leaders believe the need for the reform of drug crimes is due because of the number of cases and number of years those convicted are spending in prisons. Because of the drug wars that took place in the United States, the minimum sentence has been set so high today. Drug reform is needed in the United States, and those convicted of drug crimes with improper sentences need to have their sentence reduced. 1
According to the National Institute of Justice truth in sentencing refers to a range of sentencing practices that aim to reduce the uncertainty about the length of time that offenders must serve in prison. Throughout the United States, there has been much legislative activity related to truth in sentencing. “The Truth in Sentencing movement began in 1984 during the extreme overcrowding crises that plagued America during the 1980s and 1990s” (Timothy S. Carr 2008). There were a few discrepancies between the sentence imposed by the judge and the amount of time the offender served in prison. TIS was put in affect to seek the disagreement. States were encourage by the federal government to increase the use of incarceration. If states decided to increase their incarceration they were funded a federal grant to construct, develop, expand, or improve correctional facilities in order to ensure that prison cell space was available for confinement of offenders. There were federal efforts to motivate prisons to increase their incarceration to earn the federally funded grant through two programs called The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-sentencing (TIS). To receive VOI funding, States needed to give assurance that it will implement policies that guaranteed that violent offender serve majority of their sentences and also guarantee that the time serve was respectively related to the offender’s status and to keep the public safe.
Not everyone loves the ideas of alternatives to prison because alternatives to prison seem to work only when there is a limited number of cases that adhere to the sentence, However, when places like California is spending more money on their prison systems than on actual education, alternatives to prison seem to be the best choice (David, 2006).
The United States enacted mandatory minimum sentences for drug convictions beginning in 1951 with the Boggs Act. The Boggs Act provided both mandatory minimum sentences for first-time drug convictions and it increased the length of sentences for subsequent convictions. In 1956, the Narcotics Control Act increased the minimum sentences spelled out in the Boggs Act. It also forbade judges from suspending sentences or imposing probation in cases where they felt a prison sentence was inappropriate. In 1970, the Nixon Administration and Congress negotiated a bill that sought to address drug addiction through rehabilitation; provide better tools for law enforcement in the fight against drug trafficking and manufacturing; and provide a more balanced scheme of penalties for drug crimes. The final product, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, repealed man...
During the 19th and 20th century, federal judges had essentially unconstrained sentencing discretion. This gave way to large disparities between the sentencing of certain cases that were almost identical. To amend this, Congress modified the federal sentencing process through the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This act helped take power away from district courts as well as establish the United States Sentencing Commission; which regulated the small amount of discretion the district courts still held. District courts no longer were able to exercise leniency as the USSC imposed mandatory minimum sentencing for certain types of crime. Two years later, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which imposed minimum sentencing for violations of federally controlled substance laws. This trend has continued, covering different crimes such as child pornography and identity
“Punitive sentencing appears to meaningfully reduce crime and re-imprisonment rates for sever offences” (Shaw, 2011). If we increase sentences it will prevent crime because people do not want to spend so much of their life behind bars. It will also help with crime decreasing because once a criminal has committed a crime and has been caught they will spend longer time in jail. This will have them off the streets longer, preventing them from committing crimes, as well as it will give them more time to reflect about their decisions and have a look into their future and see where they what to be, instead of where they are now. “Offenders experience maturation while incarcerated, and older offenders are less likely to re-offend” (Shaw, 2011). Longer sentencing will give criminals time to mature, reflecting on t...
We need to reduce sentencing for victimless crimes such as drug-related misdemeanors and other civil crimes. This will prevent from those type of crimes from ruining people’s lives. It also would help the incarceration rate to lower and make the criminal justice stronger. For example, a woman, Dana Bowerman who was convicted to 19 years in prison because of drug-related problems under the influence of her father (www.pbs.org). 19 years in prison and all she wanted was a second chance. Moreover, it wasn’t even a violent crime. There are actual serious criminals who get less time than that. Moreover, that ruins families. By reforming this, neighborhoods can get better and families closer. That way children won’t grow up in an environment where
Mandatory minimum sentences have been considered the trademark for the tough on crime agenda of the Conservative government between 2006 and 2015. Mandatory minimum sentences were set out to ensure that the severity of the sentence matches the severity of the crime (Mallea, 2010). This was a “one sizes fits all” approach that ensured that every offender received a mandatory minimum sentences for offences that provoke the most societal fear (Comack, Burgher & Fabre, 2015). As such, mandatory minimum sentences have directly influenced an individual’s sentence length as it has reduced the chance of any judge discretion to a particular case. The majority of mandatory minimums were introduced between 2005-2015 (Department of Justice, 2015). The mandatory minimum laws were implemented to provide harsher minimum penalties as well as new frameworks for crimes related to drug offences, firearm offences and sexual offences. Mandatory minimum sentence were enacted for crimes related to treason, first and second-degree murder, in which the offenders will serve 25 years in prison (Allen, 2017). In 2013, there were 4,800 offenders serving life sentences in Canada (Chang, 2015). The second category is composed of 16 offences which all include the use or possession of a firearm.