Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of mandatory sentencing
The importance of mandatory sentencing
The importance of mandatory sentencing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of mandatory sentencing
Mandatory Minimums: A National Injustice Mandatory minimum drug sentencing is legislation passed by Congress in 1986 to create harsher punishments for drug offenders. These laws were created at a time when drug use was beginning to rise dramatically. This type of sentencing was meant to impose harsh, excessive sentences on any type of drug offense, despite other circumstances. While these laws seem good in theory, they were not well thought out. The creators and supporters did not consider the negative consequences of these strict laws. The injustices of federal mandatory minimum sentences have been present for years in the United States justice system. These laws are costly, unjust and excessive in our society. First, the most obvious effect of mandatory minimums is what it costs our nation financially. The sentences of drug offenders are now extremely long, and keeping large numbers of people in jail for long amounts of time is very costly. The U.S. taxpayers are the ones suffering because they are the ones that are forced to pay for these increasing costs. The cost of keeping just one person in prison is incredible. The cost of imprisoning just one person is on average 23,000 dollars per year. It is less expensive to put someone through college for four years than it is to incarcerate someone for four years. The amount of U.S. tax dollars going towards prison costs is growing faster than all other federal funding. Everyday 4.14 million dollars of U.S. taxpayer money goes towards federal prisons and 1.51 billion dollars annually (Cruel). These costs are continually and dramatically increasing. From 1986, when mandatory minim... ... middle of paper ... ...adator.htm>. Easterbrook, Gregg. “Run On Sentencing.” New Republic 220.17 (1999): 57. Greider, William. “Mandatory Minimums: A National Disgrace.” Rolling Stone 784 (1998): 42. Marks, Alexandra. “Cost Concerns Drive States to Ease Tough Sentences for Some Drug Offenders.” Christian Science Monitor 89.113 (1997): 1. Risley, David. “Mandatory Minimum Sentences: An Overview.” May 2000. Drug Watch International. 27 Feb. 2005. . “Study: Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentencing Don’t Work.” 12 May 1997. CNN. 14 March 2005. . Williams, Pete. “Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: End Minimum Sentences.” 9 Aug. 2003. MSNBC.com. 27 Feb. 2003. .
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..
Mauer, Marc. 1999. The Race to Incarcerate. New York: The New Press National Research Council. 1993.
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...
Merica, Dan, Carol Cratty, and Jessica Yellin. "Eric Holder Seeks to Cut Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
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. One group believes we have a moral obligation to our country requiring us to do no less than lock up anyone with illegal drugs
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2011). America’s courts and the criminal justice system (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The use of capital punishment is a contentious social issue in the United States. Currently, it is a legal sentence in thirty-two states and illegal in eighteen (States With and Without the Death Penalty). Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty is “the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime” (Oxford Dictionaries). A sentencing for the death penalty can be mete out due to a capital offense of treason, murder, arson, or rape. The most commonly used methods for capital punishment include lethal injection, handing, and electrocution. The act of capital punishment is unethical and immoral. Capital punishment is an ineffective method for penalizing criminals, and needs to be abolished from the United States’ criminal justice system.
When it comes to criminal justice there are several other options to punish someone rather than incarceration, any of these options can be used in place of incarcerating someone based on the individual needs. Does the person who drinks habitually need to go to jail for their fifth DUI, or do they need alcoholism classes? At the same time sometimes incarceration is the only option. Incarceration is a very costly process, and leaves the person who is incarcerated “institutionalized” where all they know is the system, and do not know how to survive outside of it. It is all a cost versus benefit battle.
With prisons growing at the rate they are now, there must be more funding. 1 out of every 131 U.S citizens is incarcerated. The rest of the citizens have to pay for this person to have a place to sleep, eat, and exercise out of their taxes. These taxes can and should be used for more important issues. I...
Michelle Alexander’s use of “Jim Crow” is a viable and useful analogy to describe the current American criminal justice system and mass incarceration. I believe our criminal justice system does not truly define justice or fairness. Also, I agree on the fact that while old “Jim Crow” laws may be dead; the current justice system serves many of the same purposes of those laws. Today, mass incarceration is the biggest issue in our criminal justice system, for mass incarceration is the new Jim Crow.
Trachtenberg, B. (2009, February). Incarceration policy strikes out: Exploding prison population compromises the U.S. justice system. ABA Journal, 66.
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.