Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Sentencing

1084 Words3 Pages

Should mandatory sentencing be abolished Ensuring judges have such discretion fosters sound sentencing outcomes, respects our commitment to checks and balances and is better than a system skewed by mandatory minimums. A neutral judge should balance competing sentencing goals like retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation consistent with broad legislative direction. Sound legislative sentencing ranges are often broad because offenses are committed differently, and offenders are as diverse as the human condition. Mandatory minimums are one-size-fits-all dictates that can result in unfair sentences. Some claim mandatory minimums ensure serious offenses result in a minimum punishment in all cases. Is a 20-year sentence more appropriate than 10 years just because a drug defendant refused to plead guilty quickly or cooperate? Who should make that decision - prosecutors whose sentencing judgments are usually off the record, or judges whose decisions are made in open court? Severe mandatory minimums greatly enhance prosecutorial power and largely remove the judge as a check on potential governmental excesses. Few disputes the virtues of a sentencing system built around guided judicial discretion with meaningful appellate review to police unreasonably lenient or harsh sentences. The debate over …show more content…

From 1960 through 1980, violent crime increased 370 percent, and property crime increased 310 percent. President Ronald Reagan and bipartisan congressional majorities responded by creating a more serious sentencing system under which judges, while retaining considerable discretion, no longer had free rein. In the last 20 years, as incarceration has grown significantly, the crime rate has plummeted. Over that time, violent crime has fallen by half, and

Show More
Related

  • The Pros And Cons Of Rehabilitation And Deterrence

    809 Words  | 2 Pages

    There is no simple right or wrong solution, there is simply choosing the best and most appropriate choice for the specific case. Choosing to use the combination of rehabilitation and deterrence is quite conflicting of one another. But some cases call for help and treatment, and so call for punishment. There are so many factors that contribute to a case, that the decision can be altered so fast by the smallest detail. The criminal justice system is complex, brutal, and sometimes unfair, but deciding on the right goal for the criminal can make all the

    Read More

  • Sentencing Guidelines in the Criminal Justice System

    3268 Words  | 7 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Plea Bargaining In The Criminal Justice System

    1199 Words  | 3 Pages

    Therefore, the argument supports the idea of plea-bargaining hurting the justice system. The thinking behind this is “since both the defense and prosecution parties depend on their power to negotiate a deal, instead of winning a trial, the justice system might suffer, ” (15 Serious Advantages and Disadvantages of Plea Bargaining, n.d.). Since plea-bargain relies on a mutual agreement, defendants plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence, which means that theoretically the system built on the thought of “ let the punishment fit the crime,” sacrifices punishment in exchange for less trials throughout the year. Although plea-bargaining might offer leeway for some offenders, the criticism fails to consider that plea-bargaining usually reduces sentences, while not completely eliminating sentences. Evidently, the practice still holds citizens accountable for their actions, while simultaneously punishing them. Although, in theory, plea-bargaining could potentially hinder the justice system and might offer leeway to criminals, in practice it helps the courts to operate in a more efficient manner. Given these points, the practice may have its deficiencies, however, the practice has space to for change and thus should removed because the justice system relies on plea-bargaining in order to

    Read More

  • Mandatory Minimums Pros And Cons

    259 Words  | 1 Pages

    No matter the recent trend for politicians to be outspoken in their disapproval of mandatory minimum sentences, the issue is a complex one with both benefits and disadvantages. Prior to doing research on the topic, I didn’t have much of an opinion regarding mandatory minimums and did not fully grasp the important role they play in contributing to the United States’ overpopulated prisons. As I began my research on the topic, I found an abundance of resources presenting the negative aspects of mandatory minimums, and initially I agreed with many of the points being made, however, as I continued to research the issue I came to realize the complexity of the matter, with compelling arguments on both sides of the debate. I recognize that there are

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Mass Incarceration

    1057 Words  | 3 Pages

    The first three reasons are about mass incarceration, this is how mass incarceration just doesn’t work. While crime has fallen during the 1980’s, mass incarceration has had nothing to do with it. Its actually had zero effect on crime since the 2000s.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Mass Incarceration

    1168 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Mandatory Sentencing

    1772 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Essay

    1495 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Federal Guideline Sentencing

    691 Words  | 2 Pages

    A great disparity existed between judges; some were lenient while others were stricter this inconsistency led to sentencing disparity between judges. In response to concerns that judges were introducing unnecessary disparities in sentencing mandatory Federal Sentencing guidelines were set in place to create a uniform policy containing a fair and consistent sentencing range for convicted Federal defendants regardless of race, gender or class.

    Read More

  • The Growing Problems of the Prison System

    997 Words  | 2 Pages

    Traditionally judges were allowed to weigh the facts of a case when determining sentencing, but since the passing of the mandatory sentencing laws judges no longer have any discretion in these matters. It was believed that the mandatory sentencing would catch the upper end of those in the drug trade and discourage others from starting to participate in it. Unfortunately it catches mostly lower level individuals and has not discouraged people from the use or selling of drugs, leaving judges caught with imposing penalties that many of them have come to resent. These penalties are stiff, mandated by Congress and are tied to the type and weight of the drug as well as if there was a firearm (legal or not) present, most of the entry level sentences are five to 10 years. Another problem with the mandatory sentencing is there are only two ways to reduce or avoid it. First is to implement another person or in some way provide “substantial assistance” to the government. The second way is a safety valve which has such a ...

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Alternative Incarceration

    2693 Words  | 6 Pages

    The recent push for alternative incarceration mechanisms has been in response to soaring prison populations in United States. America has the highest incarceration rates in western democracies. The number of people currently in prison, parole, or probation is in excess of 7 million people. Legislators have passed a number of laws, such as sentencing guidelines, aimed at stabilizing the number of a prison population. One method adopted is sentencing guidelines.

    Read More

  • Equality In Criminal Justice

    1573 Words  | 4 Pages

    A judge has the ability to choose to alter their decision for sentencing based on their respective state’s truth in sentencing program. Depending on the crime and the offender, a judge may decide to mandate the offender to a longer than average sentence. The judge may change the offender’s base sentence. It may be reduced to match a sentence that is similar to a non-truth in sentencing punishment. He or she knows the offender will only serve about eighty-five percent of the sentence before they are eligible for parole or released. By minimizing the sentence, the eighty-five percent served would resemble a sentence that allowed for early release (Chen, 2001, page ii). However, the judge may form a bias of the individual and use this power to order them to a greater amount of time in order to punish the person. An individual who commits a crime, especially a violent crime, would serve almost double the average sentence served (Ditton and Wilson, 1999, pages 7-8). It would also force individuals, who commit less severe crimes to serve longer sentences since they are serving the majority of their sentence. A bias of the offender, which can be based on any extralegal factor, may lead to an injustice sentence and truth in sentencing would not allow them to be released early. There are also innocent people within the criminal justice system that may be falsely convicted.

    Read More

  • Benefits Of Sentencing Reform

    206 Words  | 1 Pages

    Sentencing reform should stay the way it is. Historic and recent experience in california may be helpful in evaluating the potential impact of sentencing reductions.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Incarceration

    1291 Words  | 3 Pages

    The extreme increase in prison population has caused the annual spending on prisons to increase 3% each year over the last 10 years (Wyler). For several decades, policies have been put into place suggesting the way to ensure public safety is through the incarceration. Although the crime rate has decreased while the incarceration rate has increased, research done by Bruce Western, a member of the Sociology Department of Princeton, suggests “only ten percent of the crime decline was due to the increase use of incarceration” (Pager et al). Western’s findings prove incarceration is not the most efficient way to make communities safer. There are many ways policymakers can help right now: make funding more available for investing into the education system, employment services, and housing, that will create safer and healthier

    Read More

  • Scales of Justice

    1388 Words  | 3 Pages

    Countless versions and cases of judicial discretion have emerged over the years of the judicial system. However, the case of general judicial discretion exists as the category that ends up mistreating many citizens in the U.S. The court system defines judicial discretion as “the inherent power of the judiciary to make legal decisions according to their discretion” (“Dictionary”). This simply means that a judge may adjudicate a case in his courtroom as long as the sentence he gives is within reason (“Dictionary). However, many judges take this out of context and use it to their malicious advantage. The judge can dismiss or overrule a jury if he believes that a stricter, or lighter sentence in necessary. He may choose not only the guilt of the criminal, but he also may decide how long they deserve to be in prison. Many more cases have emerged where judges have given too light o...

    Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Sentencing

Open Document