Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Issue concerning war against drugs
Cause and effect of war on drugs
Cause and effect of war on drugs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Issue concerning war against drugs
Mandatory minimum sentencing was put into effect in 1986 under the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, for the purpose of expediting the sentencing process and limiting the possibility of irregular outcomes. While it was meant to be used for heinous crimes that shall not go unpunished the reality of it is not always that. Often times when a person is put on trial for a crime placed under mandatory minimum laws their crime does not fit the punishment. While in some cases it is reassuring to know that certain crimes will not go unpunished, it is equally as unsettling knowing that low-level offenders risk facing the same amount of prison time as violent offenders. The mandatory minimum sentencing laws------
Although mandatory minimums have been around for decades they are not very popular among
…show more content…
One example of a prison sentence that was far too extreme was given to 28 year old Leo Guthmiller. Guthmiller was a former addict with limited criminal history and was two years clean, undergoing rehabilitation courses, at the time of his arrest in April of 2015. The arrest of Leo Guthmiller was not for possession or distribution, but in legal terms, for being a co-conspirator. Guthmillers arrest was all due to the fact that during an undergoing case he was identified by two other users as the man who introduced them to their meth dealer several years prior. Because of the amount of drugs the couple was charged for, and Guthmiller’s co-conspirator status he was facing at least 10 years in prison under the mandatory minimum laws. A devastating sentence for Guthmiller may already have caught your attention; however, does not even come close to the worst of these cases. In an article posted on The Washington Post, Nancy Gertner, a former federal district judge and professor at Harvard Law school, and Chiraag Bains, a former
The senseless and irrational analysis behind these mandatory minimum sentencing laws that left judges with no choice but to hand out deva...
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
In Canada, over two-dozen offences in the Criminal Code carry mandatory minimum sentences. These offences include first and second-degree murder, a series of firearm-related offences, impaired driving and related offences, high treason, and gambling offences (Gabor and Crutcher 2001). Although there are so many crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences, they are not the best way to reduce crime in Canada.
Kay, H. H. (2004, Jan). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor of Law. Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343
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...
Whether or not Supermax prisons, short for super-maximum security prisons, are more crucial and longer lasting, the question has been if these prisons are useful in applying lessons learned into criminals. Supermax prisons hold some of the most dangerous criminals convicted. Supermax prisons have been known to have their pros and cons. The common pros of supermax prisons was the separation of gangs as well as many other prisoners who act out in violence commonly. Although many may say that these kind of prisons are considered “concentration” and “dispersion”, supermax prisons are often needed to maintain relief of the criminals not acting out. The effectiveness of supermax prisons is what many debate on, which have made many different arguments
Offenders are, at times, ordered to do all of these. Intermediate sanctions can be implemented in several ways. It can be implemented during arraignment or the initial sentencing, after the offender agrees to treatment and has shown improvement in compliance, or it can be implemented as a means to reduce the population in the correctional system (textbook, 131). This brings up the question of whether intermediate sanctions should be used and at what cost to the government. There are many reasons why intermediate sanctions are used and should be used.... ...
Mandatory minimum prison sentences are punishments that are set through legislation for specific offenses. They have been used throughout history for different crimes. The four traditional goals of punishment are: deterrence, incapacitation (incarceration), retribution, and rehabilitation. With the state of our national economy, cutting prison and corrections costs would be a huge savings. On the surface, it may seem that mandatory minimum sentences would serve the traditional goals of punishment. They would discourage potential criminals, keep society safe for longer periods of time, they would punish the offender and they would rehabilitate the offender. What they did not do, however, is take into account the individual circumstances of each case and each defendant. Mandatory minimum sentences are not effective and they should be repealed.
Federal sentencing law has been not justifiable and incapable of being defended against criticism or denial harsh for a generation, but in a particular conception and view of principles it has a showing restraint in a safety valve called compassionate release. The Sentencing Reform Act has given federal courts the ability to do and the capabilities of possession to bring down to number sentences of federal prisoners for curious and odd reasons, most likely a extremely bad illness.
Rosenberg, Debra. “Michigan’s Day in Court.” Newsweek. 14 Apr, 2003. MSNBC Online. 20 Apr, 2003
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 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.
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.
The death penalty is also known by many names such as Capital Punishment. The death penalty is the often referred to as the” death sentence. Since the year 1976 there has been 1,419 executions in the United States. Presently the death Penalty is legal 19 states, including Connecticut and illegal in 31 states. There are many pros and cons to death penalty. With the death penalty there are many bias as well.