More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of mandatory sentencing
Negative view of mandatory sentencing
Negative view of mandatory sentencing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
One of the many problems with the criminal justice system is the issue of mandatory sentencing. A mandatory sentence is when people convicted of certain crimes are punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. Mandatory sentencing especially applies to crimes related to drugs, thus criminals who have gone to prison for rape and other violent crimes, often serve less time then drug dealers because of these mandatory laws. Many politicians view this as unfair because these harsh laws on drugs are not fixing the problem, rather they are costing tax payers millions of dollars and overpopulating prisons. To fix the problem law enforcers must convict and sentence the drug lords, rather they are harshly punishing addicts and “drug
Jones, C. (2009). Ineffective, Unjust and Inhumane: Mandatory Prison Sentences for Drug Offences. The John Howard Society of Canada.
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 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.
Some of these crimes such as fraud, gambling, and bribery can really upset the flow of politics and the economy. But the difference is that drug and alcohol crime make up a majority of federal prison inmates, and it’s something that would be treated better with rehabilitation than incarceration. As of January 2014 50.1% of inmates in federal prison are there for drug offenses (a non-violent crime). Over 3200 of these people in are serving life sentences without parole. 83.4 percent of these people received the punishment that was mandatory under sentencing laws. According to the United States Sentencing Commission between October 2012 and September 2013, 27.6 percent of drug offenders were locked up for crimes related to marijuana. The drug policies in both state and national government are not flexible enough. Spending tax payer dollars to incarcerate drug users who don’t get the help they need is a waste of money. The recidivism rate of prisoners continues to rise. Should drug users and alcoholics continue to be incarcerated because they don’t have the ability to help themselves and stop using drugs? That is a form of neglect and continuing to waste taxpayer dollars to neglect the issue is only digging the national debt deeper, and avoiding the real
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...
Criminals in the United States often get an unfair prison sentence due to the current imperfect system. The laws and guidelines that are used to determine an offender 's sentence are greatly flawed. Some crimes are much more severe than others; therefore using the same rules and regulations for all crimes as if they are all the same is unfitting. A drug dealer, a murder, and a fraudster could receive the same amount of prison time which is clearly unfair and unreasonable. Changing the guidelines that are followed would be lawful and the morally right thing to do.
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
The complex issues of dealing with offenders in the criminal justice system has been a point of ongoing controversy, particularly in the arena of sentencing. In one camp there are those who believe offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law, while others advocate a more rehabilitative approach. The balancing act of max punishment for crimes committed, and rehabilitating the offender for reintegration into society has produced varying philosophies. With the emanation of drug-induced crimes over the past few decades, the concept of drug treatment courts has emerged. The premise of these courts is to offer a “treatment based alternative to prison,” which consist of intensive treatment services, random drug testing, incentives
Sentencing is the imposition of a criminal sanction by a sentencing authority , such as a judge. Schmallger & Smykla, 2009, pg# 71) There are seven goals of sentencing including revenge, retribution, just deserts, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. Revenge refers to a retaliation to some kind of assault and injury. Revenge can be a type of punishment for the criminal justice system. The jury, sometimes, basis there choices on emotions, facts and evidence. It is considered revenge in some cases because the victim's looks at it that way when they feel justice has been served. Retribution is a type of sentencing involving another form of retaliation. Retribution means "paying back" the offender for what he or she has done. ( Schmalleger & Smykla, 2009, pg# 73) The victim is not alone when it comes to being affected by the crime. Society is strongly affected by what a criminal does in whichever area he or she chooses. Retribution, in a good sense, would be if a coworker does her best as her job and her boss gave her a raise. This would be considered paying her back for her good deeds. As far as the criminal's heinous acts, retribution would more than likely be community service in the town were the crimes occurred. This form of sentencing gives a sort of relief to society
Be sure to address the four types of sentencing models and the issues surrounding them (equity, truth-in-sentencing and proportionality).
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.
By law, minimum sentencing is set for certain crimes for which judges can’t lower under any circumstances. It requires that offenders serve a predetermined sentence for certain crimes. Since the 18 century, congress has been using minimum sentencing. The Constitution authorized Congress to establish criminal offenses and to set the punishments for offences such as murder, treason and to address immediate problems and needs. Congress enacted the first mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment as a response to strained relationships between the United States and France. “In preparation for a possible war with France, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, which among other provisions created a new offense of opposing
We could always fix problems and say we can, having a plan but no action means no plan. Schlosser explained that some people’s plans are in play, “During the Bush administration, attorney General Richard Thornburgh did try to limit the freedom of federal prosecutors.” (Schlosser, 4) However there was an effort put in, the plan didn’t take action. They even went so far that Congress reacted, “Congress enacted… CCCA to provide… Federal sentencing law…” (N/A, 1-2) Even though Congress has changed laws to fit others, it doesn’t change how innocent people get harsher sentences than expected. Mandatory Minimum sentences needs to be solved but so far it all depends on the action provided not on the person or the position they are in.
Prison sentences should be reduced by proposing a sentencing reform. First, the U.S has the highest incarceration rates in the world. According to CQ Researcher, 98% of prisoners are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses; in fact, these prisoners majorly affiliate with drug violations. Criminal justice expert Jeremy Travis stated, "We've lost some of the constraints we used to place on the state to deprive somebody of liberty." A good example of this would involve Weldon Angelos, and He's an individual who is serving 55 years for three marijuana sales, which were in a value of $350. For such a low-level drug offense and no criminal history, His sentence is considered "extraordinary injustice" (CQ). Second, prison maintenance is very expensive.