The Attack. The power that mandatory minimum sentences were thought to have eliminated has not come to fruition. The disparities have not been eliminated, rather they have simply shifted discretion from magistrates to prosecutors.[1] Prosecutors have the ultimate discretion over what charges to bring against the defendant. This includes whether or not they chose to charge the defendant with a violation in accordance with a mandatory minimum sentence, in addition to deciding whether to negotiate plea-bargaining. The training of prosecutors does not include deciding sentencing, which prevents the prosecutors from realizing the long term affects of what they are trying to achieve.
Mandatory minimum sentences in short, do not reduce crime. Professor Michael Tonry from University of Minnesota Law stated, “the weight of the evidence clearly shows that enactment of mandatory
…show more content…
It is often believed that arrest and its subsequent steps are a greater deterrent than the severity of the punishment itself. A typical one-year sentence has now been increased to a five-year sentence based on these mandatory sentencing laws. Those extra four years, in turn, inflict continued pain. The emotional and physical toll of being behind bars can change ones whole life and even take away time they will never have back. Mandatory sentencing recently dictated that a teenager serve 15 years behind bars for selling drugs to a undercover. Is this really justice? A teenager being sentenced for a term that some murderers get? This can be the beginning of the end for their life. [5] In addition, mandatory minimum sentencing laws can turn the typical low-level offender into a more dangerous criminal. While the low-level offender may have been incarcerated at first only for drugs, after additional years in jail they may learn new skills that will cause them to become more dangerous to the public on their
Jones, C. (2009). Ineffective, Unjust and Inhumane: Mandatory Prison Sentences for Drug Offences. The John Howard Society of Canada.
The arguments against mandatory sentencing are that its not eliminating disparities or discretion and those they have shifted that discretion from the judges to the prosecutors. People contend that mandatory sentencing does not reduce crime. Law professor Michael Tonry at the university of Minnesota concluded
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.
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...
Criminals are deterred from pleading guilty because minimum sentencing guarantees a harsh punishment, which in turn costs time and money by prolonging court cases. Minimum sentencing should not be mandatory because it is unconstitutional, does not deter crime, and is not cost-effective.
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...
In the New York Times article, “Safety and Justice Complement Each Other,” by Glenn E. Martin, the author informs, “The Vera Institute for Justice found a 36 percent recidivism rate for individuals who had completed alternative drug programs in New York City, compared with 54 sentenced to prison, jail, probation or time served.” Alternative programs are more likely to inhibit future criminal acts, while incarceration seems to lack long-lasting effects on individuals. In continuance, the author adds that 3 percent of treatment participants were rearrested for violent crimes, while 6 percent of untreated criminals were rearrested for violent crimes. Diversion programs are able to treat one’s motivation for their criminal acts, rather than assuming that illegal habits will go away with time. Instead of sending nonviolent offenders to jail, legislators should consider introducing practical
The inappropriate or unnecessary use of incarceration is “expensive, ineffective, and inhumane,” and initiates a “cycle of juvenile reoffending” (Bala et. al, 2009). A study conducted by Mann (2014) exemplifies this cycle of youth reoffending. The youth interviewed demonstrated that despite a stay in sentenced custody, the threat of future punishment was not enough to deter from future offences. Cook and Roesch (2012) demonstrate that youth have developmental limitations that can impair their involvement in the justice system; for example, not understanding their sentencing options properly or their competence to stand trial. Therefore, deterrence as a justification for youth incarceration is ineffective, as incarceration proves to be not a strong enough deterrent. Alternative methods such as extrajudicial measures and community-based sanctions were considered more effective (Cook & Roesch,
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws have gained popularity in the United States over the last couple of decades. By the early 1990’s, these laws existed in all 50 states (Bjerk, 2005). The purpose of these laws seems to be aimed at creating lengthier sentences for repeat offenders; however, these laws have also been known to cause unintended consequences within the criminal justice system (Bjerk, 2005). Persons involved in the judicial process (such as judges and prosecutors) have come to realize these discrepancies within the mandatory minimum laws and have learned to circumvent them (sometimes causing further discrepancies). When working within the court system, a person encounters mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and on occasion, the need for mitigation/departure from the guidelines. Depending on how judicial personnel decide to “mitigate” the circumstances, one must consider ethical principles (such as formalism) in order to determine how to deal with these types of situations.
Intermediate sanctions are a new punishment option developed to fill the gap between traditional probation and traditional jail or prison sentences and to better match the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the crime. Intermediate sanctions served in the community now account for 15 percent of adjudicated juvenile cases (Puzzanchera, Adams, and Sickmund, 2011). All intermediate sanctions are enforced by the United States Criminal Justice System. The main purposes of intermediate sanctions: (1) better match the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the crime, (2) reduce institutional crowding, (3) control correctional costs. Primarily, this is a needed method of punishment to make offenders accountable for the extent of crime and if so let offenders live in their communities to fulfil punishment if not too extensive.
Mass incarceration has caused the prison’s populations to increase dramatically. The reason for this increase in population is because of the sentencing policies that put a lot of men and women in prison for an unjust amount of time. The prison population has be caused by periods of high crime rates, by the medias assembly line approach to the production of news stories that bend the truth of the crimes, and by political figures preying on citizens fear. For example, this fear can be seen in “Richard Nixon’s famous campaign call for “law and order” spoke to those fears, hostilities, and racist underpinnings” (Mauer pg. 52). This causes law enforcement to focus on crimes that involve violent crimes/offenders. Such as, gang members, drive by shootings, drug dealers, and serial killers. Instead of our law agencies focusing their attention on the fundamental causes of crime. Such as, why these crimes are committed, the family, and preventive services. These agencies choose to fight crime by establishing a “War On Drugs” and with “Get Tough” sentencing policies. These policies include “three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and juvenile waives laws which allows kids to be trialed as adults.
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...
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 many years, there have been a huge debate on the ideal of reform versus punishment. Many of these debates consist of the treatment and conditioning of individuals serving time in prison. Should prison facilities be a place solely to derogate freewill and punish prisoners as a design ideology of deterrence? Should prison facilities be design for rehabilitation and conditioning, aim to educate prisoners to integrate back into society.