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

Open Document