Criminal Justice Policy And Planning

More than two decades of experience in the United States have proven that the substantial costs of incarcerating drug offenders would be better used "to fund drug treatment and harm reduction programs, alternatives to incarceration, employment opportunities and human services." U.S. Criminal Lawyers Warn Against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Schemes. (2010, August 16). Targeted News Service, page 1. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2112542531

The United States has the world's highest incarceration rate. With five percent of the world's population, our country houses nearly twenty-five percent of the world's reported prisoners. Currently there are approximately two million people in American prisons or jails. Since 1984 the prison population for drug offenders has risen from ten percent to now over thirty percent of the total prison population. Federal prisons were estimated to hold 179,204 sentenced inmates in 2007; 95,446 for drug offenses. State prisons held a total of 1,296,700 inmates in 2005; 253,300 for drug offenses. Sixty percent of the drug offenders in prisons are nonviolent and were purely in prison because of drug offenses (Drug War Facts). The question then arises,

If mass incarceration is a cancer of society, mandatory minimum sentencing laws are the tumors that exacerbate society’s condition. These mandatory minimum sentencing laws require a certain length of prison time if

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.

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws entail binding prison terms to a certain length for people who have been convicted of state or federal crimes. These intransigent, “universally adaptable” sentencing laws may seem like an easy and quick solution for crime. However, these laws prevent judges from suiting the punishment to the criminal according to their offenses. Mandatory minimum sentencing causes not only state but federal prisons to overcrowd, extortionate tax costs, and deflect from law enforcement funds.

The establishment of mandatory minimum sentencing laws has been a policy blunder since their proliferation in the 1980s. Mandatory minimum laws are negatively affecting the U.S, economically and socially. These laws effectively strip judges of their ability to adjudicate a fair punishment by setting a minimum sentence and handing their discretion over to prosecutors. A number of individuals and their families have been negatively affected by mandatory minimum penalties, however, there are others indirectly affected by these policies. The U.S. taxpayer has to foot the bill for these inmates, all while knowing that prison recidivism rates are tremendously high. These laws are contributing to the over-federalization of crimes by interfering with the state criminal justice system. The abolishment or reform of the federal mandatory minimums is needed to end the social and economic damage these laws have caused.

This paper will attempt to explain the importance of proportionality with regards to criminal sentencing, increase understanding of the reasons our sentencing procedures continually fluctuate, identify three groups of individuals protected under the 8th Amendment from receiving a death sentence for a capital offense, attempts to explain the relationship between sentencing and the 6th Amendment, and will discuss the origin of the felony murder rule and its applicability.

The implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing has allowed for the substitution of prosecutorial discretion in the place of judicial discretion. The purpose of mandatory minimums was to eliminate or reduce sentencing disparities. However, they have simply shifted discretion allowing for prosecutors to have unreviewable discretion over whether to even charge a violation of law with the mandatory minimum sentencing. Unreviewed discretion caused by mandatory minimums may be allowing innocent people to slip through the cracks. James B. Halsted of the University of Florida conducted a study that examined anti-drug statutes (in the 1980s) by analyzing how the criminal justice system could possibly be incarcerating marginally culpable or innocent defendants due to ease of convictability of those prosecuted under mandatory minimum statutes (Halsted). Halsted makes a claim that “it appears that the whole purpose of mandatory minimum sentences structures is to ensure that trial judges have practically no discretion when determining the amount of punishment they will impose when sentencing a defendant convicted of a crime like trafficking” (Halsted). Placing discretion in the hands of prosecutors is clearly more disagreeable than allowing judicial discretion. Prosecutors do not have proper training in exercising discretion and do not have incentive to exercise discretion responsibly.

The criminal justice system in the United States is not a single system, but rather a combined network of systems, reconfigured as one. This means that communication and transparency is even more important than it might be within a more one dimensional system. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require binding prison terms for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes. These inflexible, “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. One question being considered within the legal community now is, while new crimes are being recognized as they are committed, should mandatory minimums really be “mandatory”, or should they be “suggested”, and serve more as a guideline, while the actual sentence is left to the discretion of the court? Not all crime is created equal and motive, or lack thereof, are factors that should play a role in the court’s determination of an appropriate sentence, should one in fact be imposed

The number of people incarcerated in America has steeply risen since the beginning of the War on Drugs. In 1980, about 300,000 individuals were in jail. (Alexander, 2010) In 2000, the number rose to over one million, and at the start of 2008, there were 2.3 million adults in prison in America (Pew Center on the States, 2008). These increases in the rate of incarceration are traceable to the War on Drugs (Nunn, 2001). “Convictions for drug offenses are the single most important cause of the explosion in incarceration in the United States (Alexander, 2010).” Drug offenses account for two thirds of the rise in the federal prison population between 1985 and 2000 (Nunn, 2001).

Another major subset in the overall prison population in the U.S. is the growing rise in incarceration rates of drug offenders. Professor Blumstein notes that when considering the growth of incarceration rates by specific type of crime, such as murder, robbery, assault, burglary, drugs, and sex offenses during the two decades from 1980 to 2001, the single most important result was that the prison rate for drug offenders increased by a factor of 10; moreover, these drug offenders currently account for the largest percentage of both state and federal prison populations (Blumstein, 2011).

Nonetheless, just as law should be tempered with equity, so should rigid sentencing rules leave room for adjustment in certain cases where a legislatively fixed sentence would be manifestly unjust. No statute can account for every variable in every case, and the attempt to do so with mandatory minimums has given rise to punishments in some small-scale drug possession cases that are completely out of whack with the purpose of the federal sentencing laws.

Federal statutory mandatory minimum penalties have existed since the early days of the nation,1 and they have continually evolved in the centuries since. As policy views have shifted over time, Congress2 and many others3 have continued to examine the role and scope of these mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal system.4 For more than thirty years, the United States Sentencing Commission (“the Commission”)5 has played a central role in this process, working with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and other interested parties to ensure that sentencing policy promotes the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”).6 Consistent with its statutory role,7 the Commission has continued to inform the

There has been long been debate between academics and policy (legal) makers about the impact of mandatory sentencing and benefits of reducing judicial discretion in sentencing decisions. There are a couple of benefits of mandatory sentencing including an increase in community safety and the removal of personal bias which results in an increase of consistency across sentencing decisions.

Drug abuse and crime is not a new concept and the statistics around the problem have continued to rise. According to (Office of Justice Programs, 2011), there were an estimated 1,846,400 state and local arrests for drug abuse in the United States. Additionally, 17 percent of state prisoners and 18 percent of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs (Office of Justice Programs, 2011). Based on this information, we can conclude that our criminal justice systems are saturated with drug abusers. The United States has the highest imprisonment rate and about 83 percent of arrests are for possession of illegal drugs (Prisons & Drug Offenders, 2011). Based on these figures, I can conclude that we should be more concerned about solving the drug abusers problems and showing them an alternative lifestyle rather than strict penalty of long term incarceration which will inevitably challenge their ability to be fully functioning citizens after release.