1991 Federal Sentencing Report

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.

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unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.

Another law that benefits private prisons is mandatory minimum sentences. This is a law that ensures a minimal number of years is sentenced for a certain crime, as decided by the Supreme Court. The law, therefore, doesn’t allow for the consideration of individual circumstances such as criminal history. This law has caused a tremendous increase in the prison population. The mandatory minimum sentence law is enforced on judges, but not prosecutors. However, under the circumstance, it is considered that prosecutors who would gain professionally from successful convictions, do not have sufficient incentive to exercise their discretion responsibly.

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).

Similar to the Sentencing Reform Act, the purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission is to prevent inequity of sentencing among federal judges. It’s role is to serve as a strict guideline for Judges to adhere and limits the discretion at which a Judge may alter the length of sentence. The goal of this commission is to hamper factors such as race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc to affect the length of sentence, and aims for the guideline to stand on a neutral ground.

“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

The Sentencing Reform Act is associated with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, were the U.S. federal statute increased the consistency in the United States federal sentencing. The Sentencing Reform Act created the United States Sentencing Commission. This act allowed the independent commission into the judicial branch of the United States Sentencing Commission. It consists of seven voting members and one nonvoting member. For the sake of the United States Sentencing Commission, there are regulations that establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system, which ensures a meeting of the purposes of sentencing. Judges are also bestowed the power to determine the legitimacy of convictions. The aspiration of the Sentence Reform Act was to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct Also to allow the Judicial system to process....

The recording is based on research founded by Nazgol Ghandnoosh, who is a research analyst for the sentencing project. The sentencing project is a non-profit group that advocates for the criminal justice reform. She also, is an author of a report called “Race and Punishment: Racial Perceptions of Crime and Support for Punitive Policies, which is about her study of police shootings disproportionately affecting African American and how media coverage shows racial bias against African American. In addition, a 2002 survey found that people made an estimate that 40 percent of those that committed violent crimes were African American, but the real percentage was only 29 percent. According to Nazgol Ghandnoosh (2015), a research

Mandatory minimum sentences are the product of good intentions, but good intentions alone do not make good policy; good results are also necessary. Congress was right to be concerned about reducing sentencing disparity and ensuring that sentences are neither unduly lenient nor unduly harsh.

This policy brief, intended for top United States policy makers, seeks to argue for the repeal of mandatory sentencing for nonviolent drug offences. The document will argue that current mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines constitute cruel and unusual punishment, something which is in direct violation of the Eight Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and goes against the core ideals of the American justice system which promises fair and equal treatment for all under the law. It will also be argued that while the practice has not succeeded in accomplishing its main objectives (reducing drug use and related crime), it has succeeded in disproportionately burdening minority populations with lengthy prison sentences sometimes exceeding those given

Each year in America many people received prison sentences for crimes that pose little if any danger or harm to our society. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in the American Justice System has long been argued by both Lawmakers and the public. We will go over some of the history of mandatory minimum sentences as well as the many pros and cons to these types of sentences. Some examples of pros and cons are the overall effect on public safety, the effect on the offenders, the cost to taxpayers, the lack of discretion for Judge’s, and whether the law should be repealed.

Mandatory minimum sentencing is defined as a minimum amount of mandatory prison time a convicted felon must serve with good time spent in a correction facility (Schalleger, Smykla, 2015). Once a felon has served his or her minimum time sentenced by the court, the individual can then be deemed eligible for parole (Schalleger, Smykla, 2015). Determinate and indeterminate structures are both utilized within the terms of mandatory minimum sentencing. Formed to meet the punishment of the criminal; rather than the punishment of the crime, and due to overcrowded facilities in the 19th centuries with large increase in prison uniformity, indeterminate sentencing was developed (Schalleger, Smykla, 2015). Discretion of the minimum to max time one must serve is determined by the judge and the statutory

First, Congress sought honesty in sentencing, trying to avoid the deception of pre-guideline sentencing system and empowering the parole commission to determine how much of the sentence an offender would serve as opposed to the former indeterminate sentence imposed by the courts. Second, Congress sought reasonable uniformity in sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal offenses committed by similar offenders. Third, Congress sought proportionality in sentencing through a system that imposes appropriately different sentences for criminal conduct of differing severity (Grong, 2002, p 2).

These kinds of bureaucratic policies have taken away a judge’s most important duty and manufactured an overpopulated prison system. In addition, mandatory minimum sentences are actually much harsher than the “tough on crime” crowd realizes, according Judge Mark W. Bennett, a federal district judge in Iowa. Drug cases take up 56% of his docket. “Northwest Iowa is one of the most conservative regions in the country, and these are people who, for the most part, think judges are too soft on crime. Yet, for all the times I’ve asked jurors after a drug conviction what they think a fair sentence would be, never has one given a figure even close to the mandatory minimum. It is always far lower,” says Bennett.