Essay On Mandatory Minimums

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.

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are fundamentally un-American. The Boston University Law Journal states that “mandatory minimum sentences provide plenary decision-making power to prosecutors of the executive branch, while heavily restricting the discretion of the judiciary”(Riley, 2011, p. 286). This significantly weakens the checks and balances of the criminal justice system. This means that mandatory minimums are in conflict with the

The mandatory minimum sentencing is about a fixed ruling of a crime that a judge is expected to deliver. Congress has enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws. It was to impose the mandatory sentencing an offender would receive for crimes that were committed. The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes committed on society, such as violent, drug-related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat offender then it should be left up the presiding judge to serve out justice. People who commit low level crimes should be punished but not to the extent of going to prison for a long period of time. Congress has enacted these guidelines so that the criminal justice system would not be burden with smaller crimes or be overwhelmed. Lengthy sentencing hearings seldom are necessary, the disputes about sentencing elements must be resolved with sensitivity concern and carefulness. A dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination then a judge will use his discretion to hand down equal and fair judgement. Legislator statements during debates on mandatory

In short the United States judicial system sends criminal offenders into the largest prison system in the world, where the increasing population forces overcrowding, widens the gap between state spending and revenue and fails to prevent recidivism; we must re-evaluate and reduce our current prison system in order to reduce state debt as well as provide inmates with livable conditions and keep them from returning to prison.

The other source I’ve read so far is web article titled Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms, by Paul Larkin. Although it is not a peer-reviewed, scholarly article, it does provide a lot of insight into both the problems and benefits of mandatory minimum sentencing, including the unduly harsh minimums, how the “move up the chain” method for law enforcement isn’t working, and how they eliminate the dishonesty in sentencing that characterized the 20th century.

Changing sentencing laws would only solve some part of the issue. Conservatives in this country have a mindset which revolves around the constant need for a “safer” society, despite crime rates lowering. Laws have been used as a tool to create and maintain second-class citizenship. Despite lowering sentencing and mandatory minimums the targeting of people of color would continue. If we were able to accomplish these ten steps suggested by Tonry, as a society we would still be faced with the issues of recidivism, racial discrimination, stigma of felony convictions, and immigration detention. All which are factors that will continue to contribute to mass incarceration.

The concept of mandatory minimum sentencing fundamentally does not work because it clogs the prisons with people that will not be reformed by the prison system and the individuals being put in prison are not the individuals that really need to be put in prison, like drug kingpins. There are also many cases of unjust sentencing caused by mandatory minimum sentencing.It also limits plea bargains that the

“Inter-judge sentencing disparity, in the view of sentencing reformers, offends important rule of law principles, erodes respect for the courts, and undermines the deterrent effect of criminal law.” (Scott, 4) The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, were created by the United States Sentencing Commission, were put in place to minimize unwarranted disparity among the sentences handed out by judges. These same guidelines that helped to decrease disparity among the sentences that same offenders received or did not receive, were made advisory in a serious of decisions from 2005 to 2007. (Scott, 1) Giving too much power to judges, through the advisory of the federal sentencing guidelines, has since created a surge in inter-judge disparities. Unwarranted

Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against

What constitutes as fairness in the criminal justice system? Is it having a man put behind bars for more than 20 years for transporting a small amount of drugs to support his family? While a man can murder someone in the second degree and be sentenced to a minimum of 10 years? Is it right to take a parent away from their children for upwards of 20 years? The United States government thinks this is fair and allows for less discrimination in the federal justice system, this law is called the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing law. It has been around since the late 18th century, but did not start affecting drug possession until mid 20th century. Mandatory Minimums were initially designed to have a “cookie cutter” way to sentence violent offenders, but now has a role in sentencing drug offenders as well.

“A mandatory term stipulates a minimum sentence that includes imprisonment and mandates that this sentence cannot be suspended and probation cannot be granted” (Schlesinger, 2011, p.64). These required laws are set by the Congress to have specific length amount of time given to convicts who have participated in certain criminal activities. They have provided such a poor outcome, and nothing is prospering with them in place there is no benefit in continuing to hand them out to convicted felons. Nekima Levy-Pounds (2007) states in her journal article there is only two reason that the law were created in the first place. “First, they were intended to be a rapid response to the perceived ‘exploding’ drug problem within the United States” (p.292). Which took place in the seventies with boom in use of marijuana usage and selling taking place. As well as, “the second reason for establishing the sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums was to

I look at the example of a single mother who has gotten caught up with the wrong people and has committed a crime that falls under mandatory sentencing. Juries can easily be manipulated by the defendant’s lawyer into feeling sorry for this woman who has committed a crime. With mandatory sentencing the juries do not have to take into account the single mother’s hardships that sentencing may cause ("8 Pros and Cons of Mandatory Minimum Sentences").

Consider the following statistics in reference to the disparities among the different groups of defendants when it comes to minimum sentencing in the United States. According to the 2010 Commission’s Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics: over three-quarters (77.4%) of convictions of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty were for drug trafficking offenses; Hispanic offenders accounted for the largest group (38%) of offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty, followed by Black/African American offenders at 31.5%, White/Caucasian offenders at 27.4%, and other race offenders at 2.7%. More than 90% (90.3%) of offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty were men; and Black/African American offenders received relief from a mandatory minimum penalty least often (34.9%), compared to White/Caucasian offenders (46.5%), Hispanic/Latino offenders (55.7%), and other race offenders(58.9%).

This can lead to corrupt convictions due to coerce guilty pleas to lesser offenses. This basically gives too much power to prosecutors who use the leverage of mandatory minimum sentences as a bargaining tool. This can be done through false testimonies from a defendant who would probably be going to prison anyway but will lie for a lesser sentence (Batey, 2002). As stated by Batey “Another major reason why mandatory minimum sentencing has failed is that it has given America’s prosecutors too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of persons to fearful to insist on the trails that might have acquitted them” (Batey, 2002. P. 2).

Mandatory minimums and three strike laws, are they really the answer to the crime problem America has faced for years? Many would say yes, including me, as long as it is for a violent crime such as murder, rape or arson; some feel that even theft, drug trafficking or possession, and burglary are all worthy of the 25-to-life sentence that can be carried under the mandatory minimums for three strike laws. A three-strike law is a law that states that you will be sentenced to 25years to life for three violations and convictions of a law. Where the three strike laws have mandatory sentences, mandatory sentences aren’t always tied in with three strike laws. A mandatory minimum is a law that requires someone