Mandatory Sentencing
Define mandatory sentencing.
Mandatory sentencing is where someone who has been convicted of a crime must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. In the situation where the crime that was committed is subject to mandatory sentencing, the judge has very little choice when deciding the punishment.
Discuss the pros and cons of mandatory sentencing.
One pro to mandatory sentencing is that it helps to remove personal bias. In other words it is a fair approach that is equally applied to all participants who are charged with the same crime. Another pro to mandatory sentencing is it emphasizes the “tough on crime” method. This guarantees that punishments for certain crimes are all the same throughout the judicial system and that punishments are not looked at as being too lenient. One more pro to mandatory sentencing is, it can lead to a drop in crime rates. For instance, if one individual commits a crime and the punishment is harsh enough, another person may not commit the same crime, seeing as the punishment is severe.
For decades, racial and other legally unwarranted disparities in sentencing have been the subject of considerable empirical research, which has in turn helped to shape major policy changes. Most importantly, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and their
…show more content…
A second con to mandatory sentencing is, it can create a coercive environment. In other words, in order for an offender to receive a less severe punishment they may feel compelled to rat someone out. Another con to mandatory sentencing is, it can create unfair sentences. For instance, if someone was stuck in a situation where they were forced to commit a crime in order to save theirs or someone else’s life, but are punished based on the mandatory sentence
Ward, G., Farrell, A., & Rousseau, D. (2009). Does racial balance in workforce representation yield equal justice? Race relations of sentencing in federal court organizations. Law & Society Review, 43(4), 757-806. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00388.x
For a majority of the 20th century, sentencing policies had a minimal effect on social inequality (Western and Pettit 2002). In the early 1970s, this began to change when stricter sentencing policies were enacted (Western and Pettit 2002). Sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three-strikes laws were enacted with the purpose of achieving greater consistency, certainty, and severity in sentencing (National Research Council 2014). Numerous inequalities involving race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status have generated an unprecedented rate of incarceration in America, especially among minority populations (Western and Pettit 2010). With numerous social inequalities currently
The majority of our prison population is made up of African Americans of low social and economic classes, who come from low income houses and have low levels of education. The chapter also discusses the amount of money the United States loses yearly due to white collar crime as compared to the cost of violent crime. Another main point was the factors that make it more likely for a poor person to be incarcerated, such as the difficulty they would have in accessing adequate legal counsel and their inability to pay bail. This chapter addresses the inequality of sentencing in regards to race, it supplies us with NCVS data that shows less than one-fourth of assailants are perceived as black even though they are arrested at a much higher rate. In addition to African Americans being more likely to be charged with a crime, they are also more likely to receive harsher punishments for the same crimes- which can be seen in the crack/cocaine disparities. These harsher punishments are also shown in the higher rates of African Americans sentenced to
“Most modem sentencing systems in the United States express an explicit commitment to ensuring that a defendant 's sentence is not affected by the defendant 's race or gender (Hessick, 2010).” Even though individuals are protected through the Bill of Rights and Sentencing Reform Acts, there are still disparities in sentencing within the criminal justice systems. Often, race and gender bias negatively affects sentencing.
In modern-day America the issue of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is controversial because there is substantial evidence confirming both individual and systemic biases. While there is reason to believe that there are discriminatory elements at every step of the judicial process, this treatment will investigate and attempt to elucidate such elements in two of the most critical judicial junctures, criminal apprehension and prosecution.
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
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.
The Sentencing Project. (2008). Reducing Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System: A Manual for Practitioners and Policymakers. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_reducingracialdisparity.pdf
More are sentencing options are great because just like every person is different, so is the crime. Prison may not always be the most effective response for people, so If courts have options other than incarceration, “they can better tailor a cost-effective sentence that fits the offender and the crime, protects the public, and provides rehabilitation” (FAMM, 2011). Findings have also proven that alternative saves taxpayers money. “It costs over $28,000 to keep one person in federal prison for one year1 (some states’ prison costs are much higher). Alternatives to incarceration are cheaper, help prevent prison and jail overcrowding, and save taxpayers millions” (FAMM, 2011, para. 3). Lastly, alternatives protect the public by reducing crime. There is a 40% chance that all people leaving prison will go back within three years of their release (FAMM, 2011). “Alternatives to prison such as drug and mental health courts are proven to confront the underlying causes of crime (i.e., drug addiction and mental illness) and help prevent offenders from committing new crimes” (FAMM, 2011, para.
2010, “Racial Disparities in Sentencing: Implications for the Criminal Justice System and the African American Community”, African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies 4(1): 1-31, in this Albonetti’s study is discussed in which it was found that minority status alone accounted for an additional sentence length of “one to seven months.” African American defendants were “likely to receive pretrial release but were more likely to be convicted, and be given harsher sentences after conviction than white defendants charged with the same crimes.” One of the reasons behind this are the sentencing laws, it is seen that these laws are designed in a way that they tend to be harsher towards a certain group of people, generally towards the people of color than others thus leading to inequality with the sentencing
Sentencing models are plans or strategies developed for imposing punishment for crimes committed. During the 19th century these punishments were normally probation, fines and flat sentences. When someone was given a flat sentence, he or she had to serve the entire sentence without parole or early release. However, by the end of the 19th century the new models were developed. These new models include indeterminate, determinate, advisory/voluntary guidelines, presumptive and mandatory minimum sentencing (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011).
When a person of color is being sentenced the unjustness of sentencing is blatantly shown such as in the article Race Sentencing and Testimony which stated, “ These scholars conclude that black male arrestees “face significantly more severe charges conditional on arrest offense and other observed characteristics” and attribute this primarily to prosecution charging decisions” (Mauer 4). This piece of writing explains that for no other reason than race do these people get convicted far more significantly than others who have the same charge but are white, which continues as far as giving a person of color the max sentence that they can have on a certain charge just for the color of their skin. The justice system has turned into the opposite of what it claims to be and continues to grow as a racist overseer, bashing down on those that they believe should be punished as harshly as possible simply for the color of their skin. The system has gone as deep as to making it so that even if a person has not committed a crime, but are being charged for it they can agree to a plea bargain, which makes it so even though the person did not do it the system is going to have them convicted of it anyway (Quigley 1). “As one young man told me ‘who wouldn’t rather do three years for a crime they didn’t commit than risk twenty-five years
The first disadvantages have to do with the lack of punishment. There are those that believe “punishment should be a central theme of the justice process” and that a period of incarceration is need of society and the victim (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 306). Some see a prison sentence as a needed punishment to either make the offender learn from their mistakes as well as a way to give the victims closure for the crime committed against them. The next disadvantage I the risk to the community. Having criminal offenders out and fraternizing with the public, “increases the risk that they will commit additional offenses” (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 307). With an offender being about in the world, it is much harder to keep track of and monitor what they are doing while serving their time on parole or probation. The last advantage is the increased social cost. The options of probation and parole “increase the chance that added expenses will accrue to the community in the form of child support, welfare cost, hosing expenses, legal aid, indigent health care and the like” (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 307). This disadvantage rebuts the cost advantage. It is based off of the belief that these offenders will go out and cost the economy more in other aspects than they would if they were incarcerated for any particular time. These disadvantages are meant to give a look at the threats that parole and probation poses to the
Mandatory sentences are laws that provide certain sentences for certain crimes. Having drugs too close to a school, or having
The benefits of community-based correctional sanctions are “to achieve public safety through reduced recidivism”, and managing the offenders through the community. Community based is also less expensive than incarceration and more flexible. Another thing rehabilitation will be more efficient as the offender will not be subjected to hardened offenders within the prisons who could possibly have an impact on his/her to a life of unlawful acts. One of the benefits of institutional-based versus community-based is to build more excellent use of institutional corrections as a stage of advancement to help offenders become more independent and effective members of civilization. This is why I believe that community-based corrections could have a less effective outcome of the individual.