More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of mandatory sentences
Pros and cons of mandatory sentences
Pros and cons of mandatory sentences
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of mandatory sentences
Men, woman, and young adults in America are being affected by mandatory sentencing due to petty drug crimes. The citizens that are being sentenced fifteen to twenty years, while taxpayers are having to pay millions for the over stay in prison. The government uses mandatory minimums to teach convicts that they will be punished to the full extent of the law just for a few grams of marijuana. In the past decade, mandatory minimums have increased the amount of convictions involving minor drug charges. One of the underlining problems with mandatory sentencing is the long term affects it has on the inmate even after released. Mandatory sentencing is also for other charges such as; sexual assault, murder, and other major crimes. In those cases, the convicted are only serving nine years, which is not long enough for the crimes that have been committed. Affecting the judicial …show more content…
This unconstitutional punishment goes against American morals because convicts have a right to a fair trial, stated in the Fifth Amendment. Due to mandatory minimums, any significant facts are unimportant, because the defendant had drugs and therefore must serve twenty years in prison. For example, judges are against mandatory sentencing laws, due to evidence and the reason the defendant committed their crime (Izadi). America has used the same court system for over two-hundred years, it was not perfect, but it does not go against the constitution unlike mandatory sentencing. In every case, there are reasons why individual committed a crime, or why they felt they had to commit a crime to make a living. With sentencing laws, if a crime has taken place involving drugs then the amount of time served is based on the weight of drugs. There are many prisons that are overpopulated and cannot serve the needs of every
After viewing the documentary: America's War on Drugs - The Prison Industrial Complex, it is clear that the Criminal Justice System is in desperate need of reconstruction and repair with policies such as the mandatory minimum sentencing act which has proven to be unsuccessful and unjust in its efforts to deter 'criminals from committing illegal acts' as seen with the increase of incarcerations of the American people and the devastating effect it has had on those in prison and the family members of those incarcerated.
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...
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.
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...
A large number of the prisoners are there because of drug related offenses. There are prisoners who have been sent to prison for life for marijuana related drug offenses. Many prisoners have been exonerated after spending many years behind bars due to the corruption in our legal system. 32 States in United States of America still execute prisoners even though there is no evidence to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent. Prison reform is needed in America starting at the legal system and then ending the death penalty.
Mass incarceration has caused the prison’s populations to increase dramatically. The reason for this increase in population is because of the sentencing policies that put a lot of men and women in prison for an unjust amount of time. The prison population has be caused by periods of high crime rates, by the medias assembly line approach to the production of news stories that bend the truth of the crimes, and by political figures preying on citizens fear. For example, this fear can be seen in “Richard Nixon’s famous campaign call for “law and order” spoke to those fears, hostilities, and racist underpinnings” (Mauer pg. 52). This causes law enforcement to focus on crimes that involve violent crimes/offenders. Such as, gang members, drive by shootings, drug dealers, and serial killers. Instead of our law agencies focusing their attention on the fundamental causes of crime. Such as, why these crimes are committed, the family, and preventive services. These agencies choose to fight crime by establishing a “War On Drugs” and with “Get Tough” sentencing policies. These policies include “three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and juvenile waives laws which allows kids to be trialed as adults.
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
One staggering number that comes up when researching mandatory minimums is the percentage of people in federal prison for drug offences now, versus before mandatory minimums for drug offences were put in place. It is reported that as of now sixty percent of the federal prison population is made up of drug defendants (prisonpolicy.org), this is twenty two percent higher than it was before mandatory minimums. Note, this only reflects a growth in inmate population, not a reduction in crime or drug use. Another number relating to the results of mandatory minimums is the amount of people in jail who desperately need help. “Some 80 percent of the men and women behind bars – some 1.4 million individuals – are seriously involved with drug and alcohol abuse.”(prisonpolicy.org). This is a sad statistic, especially considering that substance and alcohol abuse are now regarded as mental illness. It seems that instead of incarcerating these low level criminals we should help them. The cost of keeping these people in prison is not cheap either. The Vera Institute of Justice reported that forty states spent thirty nine billion dollars in one year on prisons and prisoners, a yearly average of $31,286 per prisoner (Vera.org). This is a huge amount of money being used to incarcerate people who haven’t even been involved in violent crimes. In several graphs posted
For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism is exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66). I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to people being slamming in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related.
Drug violators are a major cause of extreme overcrowding in US prisons. In 1992, 59,000 inmates were added to make a record setting 833,600 inmates nationwide (Rosenthal 1996). A high percentage of these prisoners were serving time because of drug related incidents.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Mandatory minimums on drug-related offences should be abolished. They are ineffective as they deny judges the power to impose just sentences. They have no deterrent effect and put an economic strain on the taxpayers of Canada. It is said that the elements mandatory minimums need to create deterrence of crime are severity of punishment and certainty of punishment. These elements often operate at cross-purposes as actors within the criminal justice system have been known to circumvent laws they believe are draconian by failing to charge or by refusing to convict guilty defendants.
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.
Incarceration fails to reduce crime rates related to drug-related offenses. Often, criminals arrested for drug offenses commit such crimes because of their addiction to drugs. Their sentencing would be more effective if carried out by community corrections programs such as drug treatments that specifically target the problem of drug addiction. International instruments such as the 1988 U.N. Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and the U.N. General Assembly Guiding Principles on Drug Demand Reduction urge governments to embark on community corrections programs. These programs such as drug education and treatment programs for first-time offenders assist governments to deal effectively with the drug
The idea that a longer sentence provides a bigger deterrent, is not necessarily backed by evidence. Maybe, the prison sentence acts as a deterrent to a first time user looking to experiment, however, someone who is addicted to drugs is likely not considering the consequences of their actions. When someone is addicted to a substance, it cause all kinds of problems, physical symptoms like pain, or headaches, and psychological problems like low mood or dependence. An addict simply is not going to care enough about potential consequences to change their actions. Further treatment for addiction in the U.S. can be hard to attain, due to location or expense, and this makes it difficult for addicts to seek treatment they need.