More handpicked essays just for you.
Effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences
The problem with mandatory minimums
Mandatory minimum sentencing issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“Mandatory minimum sentences are the product of good intentions, but good intentions do not always make good policy; good results are also necessary.”(Larkin, 2014) Mandatory minimum sentencing is the laws that require automatic, minimum prison terms of a particular length for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes. In other words, everyone who committed the same crime would have the same guaranteed sentence. This is an issue of grave national consequence and if America is the land of the free than how can we incarcerate the highest percentage of our population than any other nation? Mandatory Minimum sentencing is unfair because it prevents judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances, increases the amount of non-violent offenders in prison and targets minorities and low-income areas.
For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, United State judges had virtually unlimited sentencing discretion. In the 1970s and 1980s, members of the legal establishment criticized that practice and in 1984 Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act, which modified the federal sentencing process (Larkin, 2014). Congress decided to eliminate the courts discretion to exercise leniency in some instances by requiring courts to impose a mandatory minimums
…show more content…
sentence for certain types of crimes like drug, gun, pornography, and economic offenses. The individuals who feel as though mandatory minimum sentencing is fair and necessary in the United States use the dramatically high and increased crime rates in the 1960 and 1970s as a basis for their argument. They believe that mandatory sentencing have kept Americans safe and kept the promise of lowering crime rates. They have created the idea that “increased incarceration means reduced crime, and federal and state sentencing reform has helped put the most violent, repeat offender behind bars, and kept them there for sentences appropriate to their crimes.” (Gonzales, 2010) Those who are in favor of mandatory minimum sentencing say that this policy has evolved over time, adapted to changing circumstances to better understand societal problems, for the overall purpose to improve the American justice system and keep citizens safer. “The idea of “one size fits all” sentencing laws may seem like a quick fix solution for crime, but they undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offenses”. Mandatory sentencing laws cause federal and state prison populations to soar, leading to overcrowding, exorbitant costs to taxpayers and diversion of funds from law enforcement. Many people across the political spectrum have spoken out against this issue. These include the past three presidents, as well as Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, whom nobody could dismiss as “soft on crime,” and Anthony Kennedy, who told the American Bar Association in 2003, “I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences.”(Bennett, 2012) In 2005 four former attorney general, a former FBI director and dozens of former federal prosecutors, judges and Justice Department officials filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court opposing the use of mandatory minimums in a case involving a marijuana defendant facing a fifty five year sentence. 60 percent of Americans opposed mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenders according to the Christian Science Monitor. And in 2010 survey of federal district court judges, 62 percent said mandatory minimums were too harsh. Social problems such as poverty, and racism are related to mandatory minimum sentencing. They correlate because poverty and racism are the two main contributing factors in cases involving mandatory sentencing. In low-income areas many people turn to drug dealing as a source of income. Many also simply become “pill smufers” which is regularly buying and delivering cold medicine to meth cookers in exchange for very small, low-grade quantities to feed their addition. Blacks are targeted the most, as statistics show that they make up around 12 percent of the U.S. population, commit about 28 percent of all crime, but make up around 46 percent of the prison population. Many people are affected by this social problem. Federal Judge Mark Bennett states how he has seen how mandatory sentencing leaves “hundreds of thousands of young children parentless and thousands of aging, infirm and dying parents childless.”(Bennett, 2012) It destroys families and fuels the cycle of poverty and addiction. He is now sentencing the grown children of people he has long sent to prison.. Filling our jails and putting our resources towards catching and punishing nonviolent drug offenders in reality, is harmful to everyone. The U.S.
Senate is considering two bills that would revise the federal sentencing laws in the case of mandatory minimum sentences. The Justice Safety Valve Act allows judges to exempt certain drug and other offender from mandatory minimum sentences. The other bill is The Smarter Sentencing Act, which permits a district judge to impose sentences without regard to any mandatory minimum if the court finds that the defendant has no more than two criminal history points. However this apples too only nonviolent drug crimes. Each bill would grant district courts greater discretion to depart downward from a mandatory minimum sentence, which is the best starting solution for this social
problem. In conclusion, two decades after the enactment of mandatory sentences, these laws have failed to deter people from using or selling drugs: drugs are cheaper, purer and more easily obtainable than ever before. The only real solution to this problem is to have politicians back away and let the professional do their job. There will always be flaws in the criminal justice system but allowing our judges to work to their full potential we can begin to clean up the mess that was created in the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act. Mandatory Minimum sentencing can not be fair because… (Restate Thesis).
This documentary highlighted the devastating consequences that these mandatory minimum sentencing’s can have on people such as in the case of Kemba Smith and Johnny Patillo, two first time offenders who were charged under the mandatory minimum sentencing’s. Johnny Patillo sentenced to serve 10 years and Kemba Smith sentenced to serve 24.5 years, these individuals were no different than your average citizen who got caught in the fire of these barbaric laws and individuals like these two are used as a deterant to send a message to the public in their efforts to take control of the war on drugs..
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 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...
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.
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 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that one of the three objectives Congress sought to achieve in enacting the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was “reasonable uniformity” in sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal offenses committed by similar offenders (Spohn, 2013).”
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.
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...
According to the National Institute of Justice truth in sentencing refers to a range of sentencing practices that aim to reduce the uncertainty about the length of time that offenders must serve in prison. Throughout the United States, there has been much legislative activity related to truth in sentencing. “The Truth in Sentencing movement began in 1984 during the extreme overcrowding crises that plagued America during the 1980s and 1990s” (Timothy S. Carr 2008). There were a few discrepancies between the sentence imposed by the judge and the amount of time the offender served in prison. TIS was put in affect to seek the disagreement. States were encourage by the federal government to increase the use of incarceration. If states decided to increase their incarceration they were funded a federal grant to construct, develop, expand, or improve correctional facilities in order to ensure that prison cell space was available for confinement of offenders. There were federal efforts to motivate prisons to increase their incarceration to earn the federally funded grant through two programs called The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-sentencing (TIS). To receive VOI funding, States needed to give assurance that it will implement policies that guaranteed that violent offender serve majority of their sentences and also guarantee that the time serve was respectively related to the offender’s status and to keep the public safe.
Not everyone loves the ideas of alternatives to prison because alternatives to prison seem to work only when there is a limited number of cases that adhere to the sentence, However, when places like California is spending more money on their prison systems than on actual education, alternatives to prison seem to be the best choice (David, 2006).
During the 19th and 20th century, federal judges had essentially unconstrained sentencing discretion. This gave way to large disparities between the sentencing of certain cases that were almost identical. To amend this, Congress modified the federal sentencing process through the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This act helped take power away from district courts as well as establish the United States Sentencing Commission; which regulated the small amount of discretion the district courts still held. District courts no longer were able to exercise leniency as the USSC imposed mandatory minimum sentencing for certain types of crime. Two years later, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which imposed minimum sentencing for violations of federally controlled substance laws. This trend has continued, covering different crimes such as child pornography and identity
“Punitive sentencing appears to meaningfully reduce crime and re-imprisonment rates for sever offences” (Shaw, 2011). If we increase sentences it will prevent crime because people do not want to spend so much of their life behind bars. It will also help with crime decreasing because once a criminal has committed a crime and has been caught they will spend longer time in jail. This will have them off the streets longer, preventing them from committing crimes, as well as it will give them more time to reflect about their decisions and have a look into their future and see where they what to be, instead of where they are now. “Offenders experience maturation while incarcerated, and older offenders are less likely to re-offend” (Shaw, 2011). Longer sentencing will give criminals time to mature, reflecting on t...
We need to reduce sentencing for victimless crimes such as drug-related misdemeanors and other civil crimes. This will prevent from those type of crimes from ruining people’s lives. It also would help the incarceration rate to lower and make the criminal justice stronger. For example, a woman, Dana Bowerman who was convicted to 19 years in prison because of drug-related problems under the influence of her father (www.pbs.org). 19 years in prison and all she wanted was a second chance. Moreover, it wasn’t even a violent crime. There are actual serious criminals who get less time than that. Moreover, that ruins families. By reforming this, neighborhoods can get better and families closer. That way children won’t grow up in an environment where
Mandatory minimum sentences have been considered the trademark for the tough on crime agenda of the Conservative government between 2006 and 2015. Mandatory minimum sentences were set out to ensure that the severity of the sentence matches the severity of the crime (Mallea, 2010). This was a “one sizes fits all” approach that ensured that every offender received a mandatory minimum sentences for offences that provoke the most societal fear (Comack, Burgher & Fabre, 2015). As such, mandatory minimum sentences have directly influenced an individual’s sentence length as it has reduced the chance of any judge discretion to a particular case. The majority of mandatory minimums were introduced between 2005-2015 (Department of Justice, 2015). The mandatory minimum laws were implemented to provide harsher minimum penalties as well as new frameworks for crimes related to drug offences, firearm offences and sexual offences. Mandatory minimum sentence were enacted for crimes related to treason, first and second-degree murder, in which the offenders will serve 25 years in prison (Allen, 2017). In 2013, there were 4,800 offenders serving life sentences in Canada (Chang, 2015). The second category is composed of 16 offences which all include the use or possession of a firearm.