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. (EXAMPLE?) This does the opposite of deterrence as it undermines the power of the mandatory minimum sentence by undermining certainty of punishment. Proportionality …show more content…
In covering this wide range, it not only catches the serious drug trafficking that is its proper aim but also conduct that is much less blameworthy. In the case R v. Lloyd, Llyod was convicted of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. Lloyd only sold drugs only to fund his own addiction. Because he had a recent prior conviction for a similar offence, he was subject to serve the mandatory minimum sentence of one year of imprisonment [s. 5(3)((a)(i)(D) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Lloyd contested that he has tried to and taken measures to quit in the past but is struggling. Lloyd challenged the mandatory minimum sentence that was applied to him. Lloyd conceded that a one year sentence would not be grossly disproportionate to him but it could in other reasonably foreseeable cases. The provincial judge increased Lloyd’s sentence to 18 months after setting aside the declaration of constitutionality.
An addict who is charged for sharing a small amount of drugs with a friend or spouse and was charged nine years ago for sharing marijuana in a social occasion is receiving the same one year minimum as a professional drug dealer who wants to profit. People who are struggling with mental illness’ are serving the same sentence as those who are selling drugs with
In the book Crazy in America by Mary Beth Pfeiffer, she illustrated examples of what people with mental illness endure every day in their encounters with the criminal justice system. Shayne Eggen, Peter Nadir, Alan Houseman and Joseph Maldonado are amongst those thousands or more people who are view as suspected when in reality they are psychotic who should be receiving medical assistance instead, of been thrown into prison. Their stories also show how our society has failed to provide some of its most vulnerable citizens and has allowed them to be treated as a criminals. All of these people shared a common similarity which is their experience they went through due to their illness.
Jones, C. (2009). Ineffective, Unjust and Inhumane: Mandatory Prison Sentences for Drug Offences. The John Howard Society of Canada.
Approximately given 80 to 90 million Americans have tried an illicit drug at least which once in their lives; marijuana alone is tried for the first time by about 6,400 Americans everyday. Furthermore, illicit drugs seem to be relatively easy to attain- in for 1999, 90 percent said which this about marijuana, also 44 percent about cocaine and finally 32 percent about heroin. Yearly, for which 35 million dollars is given just to control illicit drug trafficking. Moreover, over 400,000 of drug offenders caught are in jail, of which, some 130,000 are which for possession. Not for only are these statistics a international obvious embarrassment but because for these quantities which have been growing throughout history, we can only assume that they will get worse. We can already begin to for imagine the costs of these numbers which is it not already clear that we need for to find an alternative approach to this
In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
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...
In Australia the Government uses three methods to tackle drugs; Demand reduction, supply reduction and harm minimization. Needle and syringe programs are under harm minimization category. Supply reduction is focused on drug dealers and drug makers and is brought about by law enforcement. In the Demand reduction method it is tried to decrease the number of people taking drugs through anti-drug advertisements and campaigns, legislation, rehabilitation centers. On the other hand harm minimization recognizes the fact that drugs can never be eradicated fro...
... desisted from crime as his calculations of probability of punishment offsets any potential rewards and thus deterrence is created.
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
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 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.
In other words, their decisions were based solely on their notion of justice and views (Schmalleger & Hall, 2014,p. 467). Although these sentences were created to prevent crime from reoccurring, the issue of they are effective is ignored. The undermining issue is that the mandatory minimum sentences produce
“Getting tough on drugs inevitably translates into getting soft on nondrug crime,” they write. “When a decision is made to wage a ‘war on drugs,’ other things that criminal justice resources might do have to be sacrificed.”
In recent years, there has been a strong push towards decriminalizing marijuana in Canada. Decriminalization refers to the act of removing criminal sanctions, such that possession of marijuana as well as consumption of it would not result in a criminal prosecution. Currently, under Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, possession of marijuana (up to 30 grams) carries a penalty of 6 months in jail as well as a $1000 fine for first offences with the penalty increasing for subsequent offences. (canadian criminal code) Advocates of marijuana decriminalization argue however that this puts a huge burden towards the legal system. More specifically, expenditures are being wasted towards the enforcement of the controlled drugs and substances act, which can be reallocated and distributed elsewhere. Additionally, since possession of marijuana involves criminal prosecution, law-abiding Canadian citizens who have no prior record but have been prosecuted for simple possession would have a difficult time applying jobs among many other problems, which can impact society as a whole. This paper will look into these arguments in detail and conclude that while decriminalization can lead to some economic benefits, the economic costs have been understated. By decriminalizing the drug, the public will be encouraged to use it leading to increase in both supply as well as demand, with none of the profits going to the government.