Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Mandatory minimum sentencing and the war on drugs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Mandatory minimum sentencing and the war on drugs
In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the largest comprehensive crime bill ever in the history of the United States. The features of the 1994 Crime Bill created sixty new federal crimes punishable by either death penalty or life sentencing as well as increase existing penalties for dozen of other offenses (Wilson, 1995). Another feature created by Congress was the statutory ‘Safety Valve’, which provided relief for first-time offenders facing mandatory sentencing in drug cases. The statute created five requirements a defendant must meet to qualify for the reduced sentence – no criminal history, not a drug conspiracy leader, no violence or firearm used, provide truthful pertinent information regarding the offense to the government prior to sentencing (Bronn, 2013; Wilson, 1995; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)). …show more content…
After the passage of the Crime Control Act of 1994, Congress directed the Commission to study federal sentencing for powder and crack cocaine.
The penalties for sentencing federal cocaine offenses were enacted in 1986 and 1988 where it established mandatory minimum penalties for both powder and crack cocaine. The 1986 act was in accordance to an offender convicted of trafficking controlled substance. The 1888 act created a mandatory minimum penalty for possession of a controlled substance. Crack cocaine received harsher punishment under both laws known as the 100-to-1 cocaine to crack cocaine ratio. Under the 1988 law, 5 grams or more of crack cocaine or 500 grams or more of powder cocaine triggers a minimum sentence of five years (1995 U.S.S.C. Report; 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)). After the 1991 U.S.S.C Report until the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, critics argued the current cocaine sentencing policies were unfair due to harsher punishment for lower drug mule compare to drug dealers and ineffective in deterring drug use or reducing trafficking (1995 U.S.S.C.
Report). Data source from the Commission’s monitoring database used 1993 data due its complete and recent information available to help distinguish between crack cocaine and powder cocaine defendants (1995 U.S.S.C. Report). It found that 42,107 offenders were sentenced in federal court where 46% (19,370) were convicted of drug offense (1995 U.S.S.C. Report). Powder cocaine was the most frequent drug case sentenced reported with 34.5% (6,681) convicted. 19.5% (3,757) were reported to be crack cocaine cases (1995 U.S.S.C. Report). Combined crack and powder cocaine cases shows 54%(10,438) were drug-sentenced offenders (1995 U.S.S.C. Report). For first time offenders, 98 were sentenced for possession of crack; 122 were sentenced for possession of powder (1995 U.S.S.C. Report). The average sentence for crack was 306 months (25.5 years) while for powder was 3.2 months. Based on its finding, the Commission found that Congress in creating a legislative policy of mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine created a system of disparately over cocaine sentencing. The Commission recommended based on the findings recommends that Congress revisit the 100-to-1 quantity ratio penalties to design a fairer, more proportional approach within the Guidelines structure (1995 U.S.S.C. Report). Two months later the Commission approved amendments designed to balance the crack and powder cocaine, urging Congress to change the statutes of 100-to-1 to make crack and powder cocaine sentencing alike (Yellen, 2008; 1995 U.S.S.C. Report). Congress for the first time since the creation of the Commission rejected the recommended amendments set forth.
After viewing the documentary: America's War on Drugs - The Prison Industrial Complex, it is clear that the Criminal Justice System is in desperate need of reconstruction and repair with policies such as the mandatory minimum sentencing act which has proven to be unsuccessful and unjust in its efforts to deter 'criminals from committing illegal acts' as seen with the increase of incarcerations of the American people and the devastating effect it has had on those in prison and the family members of those incarcerated.
Mandatory minimums for controlled substances were first implemented in the 1980s as a countermeasure for the hysteria that surrounded drugs in the era (“A Brief History,” 2014). The common belief was that stiff penalties discouraged people from using drugs and enhanced public safety (“A Brief History,” 2014). That theory, however, was proven false and rather than less illegal drug activity, there are simply more people incarcerated. Studies show that over half of federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there on drug charges, a 116 percent percentage rise since 1970 (Miles, 2014). Mass incarceration is an ever growing issue in the United States and is the result of policies that support the large scale use of imprisonment on
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.
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...
I would like to take this time to explain my position on Plea Bargains and Mandatory Sentencing. I will show both pros and cons for each topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which one I support.
Sentencing of a convicted criminal is ultimately in the hands of the judge. Although there are standards that may be suggested for a judge to follow that work in accordance with the crime committed, by no means is a judge required to follow those suggested standards when making a decision. In the end, the final verdict is left up to the judge presiding over the case and they can do with that how they feel fit. Which is why in the case of Rhonda Kuzak, the judge has decided to go a less conventional route with her punishment. Because of the previous convictions Kuzak has on her record, a simple fine and/or jail time will not be what the court ordered. Kuzak has been arrested and convicted three prior times for possession of drugs, cocaine to
Mandatory minimum sentences have existed within the United States since the beginning of legislation. When these laws were finally enforced, death was required for all felony crimes, however, only a small handful of these offenders were actually executed. During the 1980’s, the use of mandatory minimum sentencing laws increased during the “war on drugs” (Greenblatt, 2008). According to Greenblatt (2008, p. 3) “by 2007, Congress had enacted 171 mandatory minimum sentences. Of the 171 mandatory minimum sentence laws, many are rarely used.” Altogether, there were not many noted convictions under the mandatory minimum statutes (Greenblatt, 2008). Although many of the laws had not been invoked, several states have begun passing one specific type ...
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...
Today, half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes. Over half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes. Mass incarceration seems to be extremely expensive and a waste of money. It is believed to be a massive failure. Increased punishments and jailing have been declining in effectiveness for more than thirty years. Violent crime rates fell by more than fifty percent between 1991 and 2013, while property crime declined by forty-six percent, according to FBI statistics. Yet between 1990 and 2009, the prison population in the U.S. more than doubled, jumping from 771,243 to over 1.6 million (Nadia Prupis, 2015). While jailing may have at first had a positive result on the crime rate, it has reached a point of being less and less worth all the effort. Income growth and an aging population each had a greater effect on the decline in national crime rates than jailing. Mass incarceration and tough-on-crime policies have had huge social and money-related consequences--from its eighty billion dollars per-year price tag to its many societal costs, including an increased risk of recidivism due to barbarous conditions in prison and a lack of after-release reintegration opportunities. The government needs to rethink their strategy and their policies that are bad
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 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.
The sentencing court procedures should aim to uphold the wellbeing of those who come before it. For the purpose of this analysis, the priority focus is the victim and the offender, and how their privileges outweigh one another. While therapeutic jurisprudence encourages therapeutic rejuvenation, there is no guarantee that it will satisfy the needs of both parties. This is especially true in sentencing procedures, where while the judge must ensure the offender is receiving a fair sentence, they must also take into account the impact of the crime on the victim. In the case I observed, R v Liszczak & Phillips, it appeared that sentencing procedures were offender-oriented, through encouraging rehabilitation. Whereas, while victim impact statements (VIS) were considered, it did not appear they had an influence over the
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
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