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 Mandatory minimum sentences are not effective and they should be repealed.
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 The final product, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, repealed man...
... middle of paper ...
...tp://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/2009/01/a_brief_history_of_federal_man.html
History of Mandatory Minimums. (2005, August 31). [Brochure]. Retrieved from
http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Updates%20short%20HISTORY.pdf
Mandatory Minimum Sentences [Briefing]. (n.d.). Retrieved August 2, 2010, from
Connecticut General Assembly website: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pridata/Studies/Mandatory_Minimum_Sentences_Briefing.htm
McVay, D., Schuraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (n.d.). Treatment or Incarceration?
Retrieved from Justice Policy Institute website:
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/04-01_REP_MDTreatmentorIncarceration_AC-DP.pdf
Sabol, W. J., PhD., & Couture, H. (2008, June). Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007
(NCJ No. 3221994). Retrieved from US Department of Justice website: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pim07.pdf
The senseless and irrational analysis behind these mandatory minimum sentencing laws that left judges with no choice but to hand out deva...
Jones, C. (2009). Ineffective, Unjust and Inhumane: Mandatory Prison Sentences for Drug Offences. The John Howard Society of Canada.
If you get caught with narcotics, your sentencing depends on the amount you are caught with, for example, crack cocaine is five years, for five grams. Powder cocaine is five years for five hundred grams, heroin is five years for one hundred grams, methamphetamine is five years for ten grams, PCP is five years for ten grams, this is not what high level drug traffickers are involved in. most drug cases involve low level offenders. It all depends on the amount you have on you, while you get caught with the controlled substance. There was a mandatory minimum sentences were criticized by the U.S. sentencing commission as early as 1991. In the report they found that all defense lawyers, and nearly half of the prosecutors, they all seemed to have a problem with mandatory minimum sentences. They would try there hardest to get away from the mandatory minimum
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.
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.
The logical reasoning by law makers was that the threat of longer prison term would serve to deter repeat offenders, and would incapacitate the most dangerous of criminals for a longer amount of time (1 Marvell, Moody 90). Lawmakers assumption was that those that have committed crime in the past and have been convicted of that crime would be far less likely to commit crime a 2nd or 3rd time when faced with much harsher sentencing when facing the possibility of life in prison time (1 Marvell, Moody 90). However it has not been proven that the three strike sentencing initiative has had any tangible effect on deterring crime time (1 Marvell, Moody 90).
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.
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.
In his article “Petty Crime, Outrageous Punishment”, Carl M. Cannon argues against the severity of mandatory minimum sentences in terms of ethics and the cost to the state. Mandatory minimum, or in some states, “Three strikes and you’re out laws”, were designed to stop the drug trade by instituting a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years to life after a certain number of crimes were committed. These laws were enacted so judges couldn’t be soft on repeat offenders, a good idea, but as Cannon argues, gone terribly wrong. Many criminals have gotten life sentences for petty theft, while others, convicted of violent off...
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...
The war on drugs began with the presidential term of President Nixon in the 1970s. According to drugpolicy.org, “He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants. Nixon temporarily placed marijuana in Schedule One, the most restrictive category of drugs.”
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.
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
The origin of the word prison comes from the Latin word to seize. It is fair to say that the traditionally use of prison correspond well with the origin of the word; as traditionally prison was a place for holding people whilst they were awaiting trail. Now, centuries on and prisons today is used as a very popular, and severe form of punishment offered to those that have been convicted. With the exception however, of the death penalty and corporal punishment that still takes place in some countries. Being that Prison is a very popular form of punishment used in today's society to tackle crime and punish offenders, this essay will then be examining whether prison works, by drawing on relevant sociological factors. Furthermore, it will be looking at whether punishment could be re-imagined, and if so, what would it entail?
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.