Fences Of Mandatory Sentencing

mandatory sentencing removes the possibility of judicial discretion: the punishment should fit the crime. Each case differs enormously in the details of the crime and the circumstances of the convicted defendant, which include the risk of their reoffending and the possibilities of rehabilitation. Judges must have the power to weigh all these complicated factors carefully in determing a just sentence. The annual increase in growth was projected at 14%, which places an enormous strain on already overcrowded prisons. In addition, most states will find it difficult, at the least, to pick up the slack for increased costs, as the burden of "New Federalism" falls upon them.

In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from

I will obtain different peer reviewed sources to examine and interpret both facts and opinions provided by the authors. I will also use some web articles and books to gather more information on mandatory minimum sentencing and its effects on society. With this in mind, I will

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.

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).

The concept of mandatory minimum sentencing has been plaguing the justice system of the United States of America for too many years and therefore must be abolished. If mandatory minimum sentencing were to be done away with, then the criminal justice system could finally start to bring desperately needed change to itself and start to get back to where it needs to be; a system that takes people with a problem and returns a reformed individual capable of positively contributing to society. By getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, the prison populations could be reduced, allowing for more attention to be given to the reformation of each individual giving them a better chance at success. The research shows that getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing will be more cost effective, keep prison populations lower, limit unjust sentencing, and make sure that the punishment that an individual receives is proportional to the crime that they have been convicted of.

Although, there is no evidence that suggests mandatory sentencing is effective at decreasing crime rate but ample evidence of its long-term felonious results. The US and other jurisdictions are an example of the ineffective results of this regime, choosing to decrease the use mandatory sentencing regimes because they don’t work.

In today’s society crimes in the United State are growing each day, and the major aspect of the U.S criminal justice system is the punishment imposed on those who committed crimes in our communities. One method of sentencing criminals was the establishment of the mandatory minimum sentencing. During the early days of the republic, specific sentences were carried out for certain crime and early mandatory sentences the forms of punishment used at the time stretched from ducking stools/cucking stools for disorderly women and dishonest tradesmen in England, Soctland to hanging for convicted murderers. However, in recent years, evidence gathered have shown that the federal mandatory minimum sentencing were not in effect for reaching the goals of the criminal justice system. Chief Justice William Rehnquist has previously stated that “these statutes are “perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences. This essay will discuss the history, goals, benefits, and negatives of the American Judicial Systems Mandatory Sentencing.

The court system is an organization in order to provide swift and accurate judgement to the public. When an individual commits a crime they are summoned to appear before a judge. The judge is the individual who will determine their fines, jail time and the overall outcome of a case. This paper will discuss mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing guidelines.

Rehnquist, a judge himself at this point, believes that mandatory sentencing is the result of knee jerk reactions from legislators. Not only that, but the sentences are unusually harsh on first time offenders, a group which is usually offered some form of leniency in light of the fact that they are not habitual offenders. Rehnquist argues that a better policy would be to return to former guidelines. This is the stance this policy seeks to take. That having such inflexible rules on sentencing does not account for the all the variables that are involved in a the legal process, such as the age of offender, past criminal history, mitigating circumstances and other factors that experienced judges would know to take into account when handing down sentences.

Mandatory penalties have not always been a central feature of the U.S. criminal justice system (Subramanian, Ram and Delaney R, 2014). Until the 1980s, sentencing in the United

“Like the ancient tension between fixed and indeterminate sentencing, there’s an ancient debate about judicial discretion in sentencing.” Proponents argue that mandatory minimum sentencing can place a significant hardship on correctional budgets while at the same time, threatening an increase of an inmate’s claim that their rights pursuant to the Eighth Amendment protection of cruel and unusual punishment have been violated. Opponents of fixed sentencing tend to posit that mandatory (determinate) sentencing can act as a deterrent, which can equate to a reduction in overall crime rates.

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

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.

Sentencing law, due to lack of any iota of determinacy has often been subject to criticisms and has been labelled as the `high point in anti-jurisprudence'. The massive amount of discretion which judges enjoy in sentencing has led to a situation where the sentencing itself has become highly arbitrary and subjective. One of the ways in which legal systems can offset judicial discretion is through the introduction of a comprehensive fixed penalty regime. Fixed penalties however, are almost universally condemned. Fixed penalties are criticised as being too harsh as they do not take into account the peculiar circumstances of each case and further, they do not account for any mitigating or aggravating factor.