Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Current drug policy in the united states
Current drug policy in the united states
Current drug policy in the united states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Current drug policy in the united states
The United States has almost always favored a conservative stance on policy involving drugs and alcohol. In 1971, Nixon declared a war on drugs and expanded the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and introduced mandatory minimums. Later on, Regan further expanded the drug war, which led to very high levels of mass incarceration. In 2017, the war on drugs remains, as does drug use, and addiction problems, the opiate crisis remains a major public health concern. This kind of harsh criminal perspective on drugs had a major impact on the U.S. population, and it continues to do so. Mandatory minimums are laws that stipulate minimum amounts of jail time for specific criminal offenses. The amount of time that corresponds with drug possession and drug use can be long, anywhere from one to ten years for a single charge. The federal minimum also takes away the Judges’ ability to consider mitigating circumstances. The …show more content…
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. Additionally the current policy prevents harm reduction measures. This includes education about practical safety and education about how diseases like HIV are transmitted, and their
Liberal and Conservative Views on the War on Drugs Drug use has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. The use of drugs has been the topic of many political controversies throughout many years. There has been arguments that are for legalizing drugs and the benefits associated with legalization. Also, there are some who are opposed to legalizing drugs and fear that it will create more problems than solve them. Conservatives and liberals often have different opinions for controversial topics such as “the war on drugs,” but it is necessary to analyze both sides in order to gain a full understanding of their beliefs and to decide in a change in policy is in order.
Most black Americans are under the control of the criminal justice today whether in parole or probation or whether in jail or prison. Accomplishments of the civil rights association have been challenged by mass incarceration of the African Americans in fighting drugs in the country. Although the Jim Crow laws are not so common, many African Americans are still arrested for very minor crimes. They remain disfranchised and marginalized and trapped by criminal justice that has named them felons and refuted them their rights to be free of lawful employment and discrimination and also education and other public benefits that other citizens enjoy. There is exists discernment in voting rights, employment, education and housing when it comes to privileges. In the, ‘the new Jim crow’ mass incarceration has been described to serve the same function as the post civil war Jim crow laws and pre civil war slavery. (Michelle 16) This essay would defend Michelle Alexander’s argument that mass incarcerations represent the ‘new Jim crow.’
The United States of America has the world’s highest incarceration rates, for several reasons. The United States of America doesn’t necessarily possess any unique strict laws in comparison to other countries of the world, yet we still have the highest incarceration rate in the world. More federal level and state level prisons are built in order to control and hold more prisoners because most are reaching its full capacity. The United States of America’s “crime rates” increased about 40 years ago when there became a new focus in the areas of crime. The President of the United States of America at the time Richard Nixon used the term “a war on drugs” in order to shed light on public health due to substance abuse. Initially, these policies created
“Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin’s gulags.”
Todd Davidson was following the Grateful Dead on tour with a friend he roomed with. His friend, unknown to Todd, had set up a drug deal to sell LSD. What Todd’s friend did not know was that his ‘customers’ were not looking for a high, they were undercover cops looking for a drug bust. When the police entered the hotel room, they found Todd’s friend, preparing to sell LSD, and Todd sitting separate from him, uninvolved in the crime. The officers arrested the dealer as well as Todd. Todd claimed to have no participation in the deals, and there was no evidence to prove contrarily. However, that did not keep him from prison. Todd was sentenced to 10 years in prison under a mandatory minimum law (Stewart 115).
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.
Mass incarceration has put a large eye-sore of a target on the United States’ back. It is hurting our economy and putting us into more debt. It has considerable social consequences on children and ex-felons. Many of these incarcerations can be due to the “War on Drugs”. We should contract the use of incarceration.
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...
Mandatory minimum sentencing is the practice of requiring a predetermined prison sentence for certain crimes. The most notable mandatory minimums are the ones implemented in the 70’s and 80’s, hoping to combat the rising drug problem. Mandatory minimum sentencing has existed in the United States nearly since its very birth, with the first mandatory minimums being put into place around 1790. Recently, as the marijuana laws of many states have scaled back in severity, the issue of mandatory minimums has caused controversy in the US. There are two distinct sides to the argument surrounding mandatory minimum sentencing.
According to the Oxford Index, “whether called mass incarceration, mass imprisonment, the prison boom, or hyper incarceration, this phenomenon refers to the current American experiment in incarceration, which is defined by comparatively and historically extreme rates of imprisonment and by the concentration of imprisonment among young, African American men living in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage.” It should be noted that there is much ambiguity in the scholarly definition of the newly controversial social welfare issue as well as a specific determination in regards to the causes and consequences to American society. While some pro arguments cry act as a crime prevention technique, especially in the scope of the “war on drugs’.
Overcrowding of prisons due to mass incarceration is among one of the biggest problems in America, mass incarceration has ruined many families and lives over the years.America has the highest prison population rate , over the past forty years from 1984 until 2014 that number has grown by four hundred percent .America has four percent of the world population ,but twenty-five percent of the world population of incarcerated people Forty one percent of American juveniles have been or going to be arrested before the age of 23. America has been experimenting with incarceration as a way of showing that they are tough on crime but it actually it just show that they are tough on criminals. imprisonment was put in place to punish, criminals, protect society and rehabilitate criminals for their return into the society .
Through the years the mandatory sentencing for drug offenders has lowered to at least 10 years it varies by the state. Even though it 's shorter than previous years it is still a long time to send someone to jail without a guaranteed promise that they will get better in the end. On Prison police.org website it is quoted that “two decades after the enactment of the mandatory sentences, these laws have failed to deter people from using or selling drugs.
Mandatory minimum sentencing was put into effect in 1986 under the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, for the purpose of expediting the sentencing process and limiting the possibility of irregular outcomes. While it was meant to be used for heinous crimes that shall not go unpunished the reality of it is not always that. Often times when a person is put on trial for a crime placed under mandatory minimum laws their crime does not fit the punishment. While in some cases it is reassuring to know that certain crimes will not go unpunished, it is equally as unsettling knowing that low-level offenders risk facing the same amount of prison time as violent offenders. The mandatory minimum sentencing laws------
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.
Suffering from an addiction is punishment enough, sending drug addicts to jail is not the solution. Addicts are suffering already by not having a place to stay. Most of the time addicts do not remember where their family is located at and they need help to get better.That is why I am saying that addicts should go to rehab instead of prison.