Mandatory minimum sentencing started with good intentions; to restrict the unlimited sentencing discretion of judges. This unlimited power often gave way to a large disparity among sentences that involved similar circumstances. However mandatory minimums have only switched that power from the judges to legal prosecutors. While judges almost unanimously dislike this restriction on their powers, prosecutors are taking their newfound abilities in stride. Some would even say they are abusing the power beholden to them for personal gains. Fortunately most of the public has agreed that these laws are incredibly unfair and deprive defendants of a fair trial. When these laws were first introduced in the 80’s, members of both parties supported them in a rare case of bipartisanism. In recent years that sentiment has changed, and now lawmakers and legislators are hearing the public outcry for reform. Legislators are now …show more content…
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
The senseless and irrational analysis behind these mandatory minimum sentencing laws that left judges with no choice but to hand out deva...
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
When an offender is sentenced to imprisonment, post sentencing considerations must be made based on an evaluation of the individual and this will determine the manner in which the prison sentence is served. Post sentencing considerations include security classifications, parole and continued detention orders. These offer different levels of incapacity, accessibility of rehabilitation programs and incentives for good behaviour, and are implicated in order to achieve justice through upholding the rights of the victim, the offender and the wider community.
Drug policies stemming from the War on Drugs are to blame, more specifically, the mandatory minimum sentencing mandates on petty drug charges that have imprisoned millions of non-violent offenders in the last three decades. Since this declaration of war, the percentage of drug arrests that result in prison sentences (rather than probation, dismissal, or community service) has quadrupled, resulting in an unprecedented prison-building boom (Wyler, 2014). There are three main reasons mandatory minimum sentencing laws must be reformed: (1) They impose unduly harsh punishments on relatively low level offenders, leading to the mass incarceration epidemic. (2) They have proven to be cost ineffective fiscally and in crime and drug use reduction. (3) They perpetuate a racially segregated criminal justice system that destroys communities and discourages trust
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.
Felman (2012) explains this by saying “in the last twenty-five years since the advent of mandatory sentences for drug offenses and the Sentencing Guidelines, the average federal sentence has roughly tripled in length” (p. 369). The development of these guidelines indicates that for the same crimes that individuals committed previously, they are now receiving longer sentences. Mandatory sentencing also suggests that no matter an individual’s circumstance, they will receive the same punishment as everyone else. Although this is a step towards the impartiality that the criminal justice system is constantly seeking, there are certain issues that have been found with what can be deemed as harsh, mandatory
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 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...
When people think of reform movements, they often look for one key sign, and ask one key question of whether that the reform was a success. Did the reform create a lasting change in the way people view the institution that was reformed? All the great reformation movements, from Horace Mann and his education reforms, to Martin Luther, and the Protestant Reformation, to the civil rights movement, all created lasting change in the minds of the average person. One other reform, often overlooked historically is the Prison Reform movement. As the world shifted from 18th to 19th century ways of life, many key aspects of life underwent tremendous change. As the United States gained their independence from Britain and began to shape their own identity, the reforms and revolutions that occurred in this infantile stage of its history played an immeasurable impact on the future of the entire country, with the most notable and impact reform being the reformation of prisons from the 1820s until 1860.
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...
...versus powder cocaine were aimed at creating even more racially disparate outcomes. The sentencing difference between the two was 100:1; the harsher punishment being placed upon the users of crack cocaine. The possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine held the very same 5 year prison sentence as the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine. (Investigating Differences, pp.107). The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 has been the most recent attempt and addressing and leveling this sentencing disparity. The Fair Sentencing Act included provisions to the drug statutes such as the leveling of the sentencing disparity from the 100:1 ratio to 18:1. Though some headway has been made, the sentencing still disproportionately favors the powder cocaine…..or white….drug users.
Though these polices are effective in decreasing the amount of crimes committed, they are often criticized for being harsh to those who commit nonviolent offenses such as drug crimes. According to Wallace (1993), mandatory sentencing takes away the judge’s discretion and allows the prosecution to possess more power within the courtroom. This may be especially true for cases in which the defendant can provide the prosecution with assistance for another case or for another participant in the crime. The prosecutor uses the defendant for information in exchange for shorter sentences, swinging the case in the prosecutions favor, and leaving other defendants without useful information at a
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
The sentencing process is created by some of the legislative party, who use their control to decide on the type of criminal punishment. The sentencing guidelines for the judges to go by can be different depending on the jurisdiction and can include different sentencing such as “diversionary programs, fines, probation, intermediate sanctions, confinement in jail, incarceration in a state or federal prison, and the death penalty” (Siegel & Bartollas, 2011, p. 40). In some jurisdictions the death penalty is not included as one of the punishments. Being sentenced is step one of the correction process and is in place to discourage repeat offenders (Siegel & Bartollas, 2011, p. 40). Depending on the crime committed the offender can be sentenced to a consecutive sentence or a concurrent sentence. If an offender is charged for committing more than one crime the judge can give the offender a concurrent sentence where both charges are served at the same time. If an offender is charged for committing more than one crime the offender can be giving a sentenced where he has to serve time for each crime one after the other (Siegel & Worrall, 2013, p. 210). Once the offender has been sentenced from there you will be able to determine if the sentence is indeterminate or determinate.