Criminal Justice
A federal judge in Utah imposed a 55-year mandatory minimum to Weldon Angelos a first-time drug offender in 2004. In the trial, he was convicted of three counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 13 drugs, money laundering and firearm charges. He received 5 years mandatory minimum for possessing a firearm furtherance of drug trafficking, successive 25-year sentence for second count and another 25-year sentence for the third count.
The gun mandatory minimum sentences potentially violate the Eighth Amendment that seeks to prohibit against cruel and unusual punishments such as the one in Weldon Angelos case. The mandatory minimum is a determinate sentencing where offenders are given a fixed term, the legislature fixes the penalty for offense categories and once a sanction is chosen and imposed it not subjected to change (Peak, 2013, p. 263). The judge in the Weldon case was bound by the minimum sentencing requirements which took the discretion to tailor a more fitting sentence for the first time drug offender.
The federal law call 5,7,10 and 30-year mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, brandishing or discharging a gun during a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence. Each subsequent conviction attracts a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years,
…show more content…
The gun mandatory sentences are bad policy as they undermine constitutional guidelines that have been established to promote proportionality and fairness. Mandatory sentences have forced judges to impose unwarranted sentences to offenders even in situations that sound punishments can be tailored (Congress, 2010, p. 5208). The mandatory minimum sentences are discriminatory as the minorities are most likely to receive these sentences compared to the
Michael “Meeko” Thompson has spent more than two decades locked away in the Chippewa Correctional Facility. Michael was arrested for selling three pounds of cannabis to an undercover officer. He had prior drug offenses, but no history of violence. When his house was raided after his arrest, a few antique firearms and one usable firearm were recovered. Despite the fact that the antiques did not fire and the one that did was owned by Michael’s wife, he was convicted of felony possession of a firearm along with his cannabis charges. This was his fourth offense which labeled him a habitual offender, and he was sentenced to 40-60 years in prison. He could have been sentenced to as little as five years. Notably, even the Michigan Supreme Court
The eighth amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. New Cutting edge technology carries with it the likelihood of new treatment for criminals. A fictional example of such technology is Ludovico treatment, which alters the consciousness of a criminal and makes them non-violent. The use of the Ludovico treatment on prisoners can be considered a cruel and unusual punishment and thus violate the eighth amendment. Even though this treatment may be technically unconstitutional, it would be allowed in the United States for the betterment of society.
Drug policies stemming from the War on Drugs are to blame, more specifically, the mandatory minimum sentencing mandates on petty drug charges that have imprisoned millions of non-violent offenders in the last three decades. Since this declaration of war, the percentage of drug arrests that result in prison sentences (rather than probation, dismissal, or community service) has quadrupled, resulting in an unprecedented prison-building boom (Wyler, 2014). There are three main reasons mandatory minimum sentencing laws must be reformed: (1) They impose unduly harsh punishments on relatively low level offenders, leading to the mass incarceration epidemic. (2) They have proven to be cost ineffective fiscally and in crime and drug use reduction. (3) They perpetuate a racially segregated criminal justice system that destroys communities and discourages trust
...n some peoples’ opinions’ that would be a horrible idea, but I think that if someone was to make people suffer and put them through absolute misery, they should not be let off the hook very easily. So instead of the Eighth Amendment being “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” (Legal Dictionary), it should be “as “Excessive bail or fines should not be imposed unless it fits the crime committed, cruel and unusual punishment should also not be imposed unless the need was to arise where the crime was extreme enough for all the jury members should agree on a cruel or unusual punishment.”.
illegal for a felon to possess any firearm. ( Moore 1994 p 440) Most of the
... Court case McClesky v. Kemp not only violated the Eighth, but also violated the 14th Amendment. If McClesky had shot a black police officer, then he wouldn't have had to be sentenced to death. That being the case, The U.S. shouldn't continue to apply the death penalty because two thirds of the world's countries, including all of Europe have abolished the death penalty policy.
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...
The right to bear arms protects “The Individual” rights from owing a firearm. The modern federal government easily accepted the 2nd Amendment with a widespread agreement that power of the federal government to infringe the Amendment that gives people the right to bear arms. If the government should not have the power to abbreviate from the free right to exercise of religion, than the government should not have the power to abridge the 2nd Amendment right (Lund & Winkler, n.d.). Over the past century, many restriction were supported to prevent criminal from possessing firearms as the law also limits the law-abiding people who respect the law also known as “Honest
... long. As it turned out, to her surprise, she was sentenced to 30 years in prison. A young lady with no criminal background was sentenced to three decades behind bars. But after the recent change in nonviolent drug charges, she had her sentence cut to 21 years, and she was released from prison. She has now returned home to her adult children. Nodd stated, “I didn’t need 20 years to learn my lesson. It would have taken me a month behind bars because it killed me to leave my kids.” Because of the old structured minimums that are set before our judges and juries, people like Nodd have to suffer unjust consequences.
Although the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from completely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are allowed on the distribution and possession of firearms. Certain groups of people such as criminals, the mentally unstable, and soldiers dishonorably discharged from the military are prohibited from possessing or interacting with firearms (Flynn). These restrictions are enforced by background checks in some states on both a state and federal level. However, gun laws vary from state to state and are often not thorough enough; the background checks are flawed due to lack of information and misinformation, and guns can easily end up in the hands of criminals and malevolent individuals. The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters crime and a dangerous environment. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that stricter gun laws can be implemented because modern citizens do not require guns, current background checks are flawed, gun...
Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.
Gun laws control the types of firearms that may be purchased, designate the qualifications of those who may purchase and own a firearm, and restrict the safe storage and use of firearms. Advocates for gun control laws argue that with these laws in place the incidence of violent crimes are reduced because the prevalence of firearms is reduced or in other words fewer guns mean less crime. But this only holds some truth because the relationship between gun control and crime rates don’t effect each other immediately. A law that is put into place won’t see any effect crime rates until a few years down the road. A study taken in the 1997, found that the right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime rates. The reductions are greater in counties with proportionally higher urban populations and the laws afford relatively greater protection to minorities and women. The study also shows that criminals substitute non confrontation crimes such as burglary, auto theft, and larceny, for violent crimes such as robbery and assault (Moorhouse et al., 2006). Thirty five states now permit law abiding residents to carry a concealed weapon (Malcom and L., 2003). With concealed weapons laws in place, the probability of a criminal coming to a confrontation with an armed citizen has increased. As such, right-to-carry laws
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.
Merica, Dan, Carol Cratty, and Jessica Yellin. "Eric Holder Seeks to Cut Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Stat. ({2016}), the 10-20-Life law is in place to eradicate the minimum mandatory sentencing for aggravated assault in Florida. The Statute states that in the 10-20-Life law, if a person is convicted of being in possession of a firearm, they will get a mandatory sentence of ten years. If a person convicted of possession of a semi-automatic/machine gun, they will get a mandatory sentence of fifteen years. If a person convicted of discharging a firearm of any type, they will get a mandatory sentence of twenty years. If a person discharges a weapon which causes bodily harm or death, the person will receive a mandatory sentence of twenty-five years to life. Hence, with younger people committing violent crimes, they may spend the rest of their natural born life