1991 Report

The criminal justice system is a set of organizations and procedures set up by governments to control wrongdoing and force punishments on the individuals who disregard the laws. The main frameworks are state and federal. The state criminal justice systems handle wrongdoings perpetrated inside their state limits and government, the federal criminal system handles violations carried out on federal property or in more than one state. This system is supposed to be equal yet the nature of offenses, differential policing policies and practices, sentencing laws and biases are possible contributors to disparities in the system. The severity of the offense, prior record, age and education level are also taking into account when a decision is being made. Our prison system today varies immensely with ascending numbers of minority groups jailed within the system. Racial and ethnic imbalances continue in the United States and no disparity is more evident than that found in the criminal justice system. Disparity usually refers to a difference that is unfair, disparity in the criminal justice system stems from racial disparity which concludes that the proportion of a racial ethnic group within the control of the system is greater than the population of that group outside that control.

Mandatory minimum laws, which set different minimum sentences for crack and powder cocaine possession, are policies that are inflexible, “one-size-fits-all” sentencing laws that undermine the constitutional principle that the punishment should fit the crime and undermine the judicial power to punish an individual in context of the specific circumstances. Similarly, 3-strikes laws also ignores judicial discretion. Truth-in-sentencing policies refer to policies created to have a convict serve the full sentence, regardless of good behavior or other deterrent. These policies are created to only incapacitate people—more specifically minorities—not to rehabilitate them. More people in jail and longer sentences are not helping ensure public safety.

The diversity issue focused on in this paper will be racial disparity in sentencing. This paper will also focus on some of the reasons why racial disparity exists within sentencing. One of the research methods used in this paper will be case studies. In society today there are a diversity of citizens, of offenders, and leaders within in the court system. However, race still plays a big role in the Criminal Justice system especially during the sentencing portion. Although racial dynamics may have changed over time, race still exerts an undeniable presence in sentencing process. This ranges from disparate traffic stops due to racial profiling to imposition of the death penalty based on the race of

In the U.S. the “War on Drugs” has been at the forefront of debates and discussion since it was formally declared by President Nixon in 1971. This war continues to have many problematic consequences today, the most notable being mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offences. This issue has been extensively researched by Kieran Riley with an article in the Boston University Law Journal titled “Trial by Legislature: Why Statutory Mandatory Minimum Sentences Violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine”, Paul Cassell and Erik Luna with a peer-reviewed scholarly article titled “Sense and Sensibility in Mandatory Minimum Sentencing”, and the Families Against Mandatory Minimums organization with a policy report. All of these sources came to the same conclusion, that the many negative aspects of mandatory minimums far outweigh the few positive aspects. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenses that unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.

This paper explores several different sources that cover some aspect of how the United States Penal System went from the Rehabilitative Model to a punitive system. Bryan Stevenson and Betsy Matthews have written about how drug enforcement and the “War on Drugs” are responsible. Yeoman Lowbrow’s analysis of the crime rate and statistics will be considered alongside Matthews’ analysis of the different political parties’ changing views. The change in United States sentencing practices as a result will also be considered. In the conclusion a brief summary of a predicted future will be

It has been brought up that certain race and ethic affects a person’s sentencing. Many studies have addressed the question are African Americans treated more severely than similarly situated whites? (Mitchell, 2005). Observers had indeed noted that black defendants get more severe sentencing than white defendants do (Spohn, 1981). For many years’ social scientist has examined this theory and came up with three explanations, racial discrimination, Wealth discrimination, and legal factors (Sellin, 1928). These three explanations all direct back to blacks because blacks are more likely to be poor, so they are wealth discriminated. Also, legal factors point to blacks because black defendants are more likely to have a serious charge or criminal record than whites do. Some researchers examine whether race has an impact on juveniles being convicted in the adult system (Howell, 2012) as well.

Sentencing disparities as a result of an individual’s race or ethnic background, has been one of the most frequently investigated topics in criminological research. (Mitchell, Mackenzie 2004). Several studies have attempted to understand the impact of the offenders’ race on criminal sentencing but there has been variation in the results- some of studies concluded race does effect sentencing regardless of the legal variables; some studies revealed it does not; while other studies concluded that race does impact sentencing when coupled with other factors. (Pratt 1998).

In this paper I will illustrate racial disparity in sentencing in the criminal justice system. The causes of racial disparity and the reasons it is on the rise, the research statistics, and the proposed solutions are discussed.

In the article “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy,” the author highlights how mandatory minimum sentencing is a policy that has failed in attempt to put an end to drug crimes. Batey stated that the attempts of federal and state thought that they could “get tough on crime,” particularly drug offense, by eliminating the sentence discretion of judges and restoring it with long minimum sentences that applied regardless of defendant's individual circumstances (Batey 24). Moreover, the mandatory minimum sentences take authority away from the judge and give it to the prosecutor, who decides whether to charge the defendant with a crime carrying a long minimum sentence or much less offense. Withal, mandatory minimum sentences have failed due to giving America’s power too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of persons too fearful to insist on a hearing that might have released them (Batey 25). Finally, Batey mentions that mandatory minimum sentence policy has filled prisons with the wrong people, which are minor players, not drug kingpins, and even some who are innocent (Batey 25).

Within the past decades, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of heinous crimes committed, causing some of the laws to significantly change. During the 1970s, some dramatic changes occurred when laws shifted from one extreme to another: rehabilitation to retribution. Such circumstances created an additional emphasis on the offense rather than on the offender. During the 1980s, the “get-tough-on-crime” era began; thus, radical changes in laws continued up until the late 1990s. Throughout the period of the Industrial Society, the United States had two bipolar types of punishment: harsh and lenient. Today, the main focus of the Criminal Justice System is about retribution and punishment.

Mandatory sentencing has been a big driver in the large population of incarcerated individuals in the United States. District attorneys are more aggressive in how they file charges against the arrestee. While the country has seen a decline in crime, new

The author would have to say that the statistics coupled with the creation of the United States Sentencing Committee reveal that judicial discretion was at a much higher level prior to 1984, and has been on a decline as legislature has begun to regulate the discretion in which judges having in regard to sentencing in criminal cases. “Anderson, Kling, and Smith (1999) investigated 77,201 criminal cases decided between

The notion that punishment should be equal to the crime is a major philosophy in the US criminal justice system. However, finding a great balance between justice and punishment is often a blurred line. Over the past 40 years, the population of state and federal prisons have risen drastically. Polices such as the war on drugs and get tough on crime have caused judges to give out more incarceration years than ever before. With such are large prison population, the resources needed to operate is much greater than ever before. Many in the criminal justice system began to question if excess sentencing is responsible for the failed prison system. This essay will explore the theories of proportional sentencing and how they could be implement. This essay will look at the current polices of sentencing and the how theories associated with proportional sentencing could be used to repair a broken punishment system.

In the United State today, there is no standard when it comes to punishment and sentencing. This area of the criminal justice system is one that is in constant flux. Sentencing practices and goals are always under scrutiny. From “getting tough on crimes” to more rehabilitative approaches, the views and goals of sentencing are ever changing. Since time began, there was crime and with crime came the need to punish criminals. How criminals were punished and the methods behind the punishments changed throughout the times. Standards of punishment moved from banishment and fines to torture and “blood feunds.”(Siegel & Senna, 2005). A more organized system of punishment came forth with the formation of Common Law which was brought over to the United State from England. With the development of a system, there was a move away from physical punishment towards methods more acceptably used yet today in the United States. “Today there is many things criminal justice system aims to do by imposing punishments and sentences goals of punishment have moved from satisfying the victims, as in early days, to move of a broad scale. There are theories on how punishment and sentencing may serve to reduce crime as a whole. General and specific deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and reformation are just some of these goals.”(Siegal & Senna, 2005).

Sentencing,” Haile argues for justice, retroactivity is critical to expediting decarceration, correcting racial inequality, and promote public safety. Haile mentions in his essay a statement said by Senator Mike Lee: “Our current federal sentencing laws are out of date, they are often counterproductive, and in far too many cases … they are unjust (Haile 635).” Taking this into consideration, mandatory sentences have been put up with to the extent where it could no longer held anymore. Finally, the nation could see how unreasonable and harsh they are on drug offenders. Thus, lawmakers have suggested to reduce the harsh impact of mandatory sentencing (Haile 635). The aim is to present solutions to give a fair punishment to offenders and at the same time have an important impact on the federal prison population. Moreover, Haile states in his essay how prison population rates are increasing by the double, at an alarming rate. And despite having two dozen prisons, it still is over crowded (Haile 636). This is due to the mandatory minimum sentencing, where it causes the imprisonment of low-level offenders. Besides, this expansion has caused a disadvantage for communities of different races and color. It is said that black men and women are incarcerated at a rate six times greater than white men and women (Haile 637). The issue does not stop there, at sentencing for drug offenders only 39% of blacks receive a relief from a mandatory minimum sentences, which is unfair compared to whites, who receive 64% of relief (Haile 638). Furthermore, because drug offenders are likely to be African American and Latino it caused troubles for communities of color. These individuals suffer from psychological distress, even mental illnesses, which can speed up the risk of suicide (Haile 638). However it does not end there, these same individuals also suffer from harsh treatments after being released from prison, such as: having a hard time getting a job, housing, education, public benefits, and even voting (Haile 638). Also, because of this the families of the offenders are likely to follow the same footsteps due to the impact of harsh treatment from society.