Mandatory Minimum Penalties

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 concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge’s ability to give out a sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory

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.

Now this act helped form the United States Sentencing Commision which was an independent commision in the judicial branch of the Unites States. Now the Sentencing Commission was in charge of creating sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system. In line with Sentencing Reform Act this will increase prison overcrowding. This overcrowding has led to many unsanitary and horrendous conditions that the inmates have to live in. “Under the Act, fewer convicted criminals will be sentenced to probation. Only those few with a minimum guideline sentence of zero to six months will be eligible for probation. As a result of the Guidelines, some ninety percent of defendants sentenced in federal court will go to prison” Stanley A. Weigel. (1988).

What does constitute 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, 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 justice system, this law is called the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing law which has been around since the late 18th century. The Mandatory Minimum is for several types of crimes ranging from drug possession, possession of illegal firearms, and sex crimes against children. But this law was initially designed to have a

Current mandatory minimum sentencing laws are in dire need of reform. A mandatory minimum sentence is a court decision where judicial discretion is limited by law. As a result, there are irrevocable prison terms of a specific length for people convicted of particular federal and state crimes. As of January 2014, more than 50 percent of inmates in federal prisons are serving time for drug offenses, and more than 60 percent of people incarcerated are racial and ethnic minorities. The use of safety valves and implementation of the Fair Sentencing Act are a few methods Congress employed to combat racial disparity in prisons. Mandatory minimum sentencing harshly punishes non-violent offenders, disproportionately affects minorities, and skews the balance of power between judges and prosecutors.

Common crimes in the judicial system include drug offenses, firearm offenses, and sexual assault, and the depending on the judge the repercussions could vary. To have unvaried penalties, mandatory minimum sentencing laws were enacted. These laws help keep citizens protected, while criminals are incarcerated. John Oliver, the host of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, talks about how mandatory minimum sentencing increases the number of criminals incarcerated, and he believes the length of their prison time is longer than it should be. He shows videos of criminals who were convicted under the mandatory minimum law with drug crimes. These videos explain how this law affected each of these individuals and their families, and some were sentenced to life in prison for their crimes. Oliver states, “Mandatory minimum sentencing laws designed to stop [drug crimes] have done way more harm than good (Oliver).” Although Oliver believes mandatory minimums are damagining, it was an illegal action that put those criminals in jail. Without breaking the law, they would have a free life. Removing mandatory minimum sentencing on drug offenses from the judicial system is unethical. It is necessary in the judicial system, because the safety of citizens is in the hands of judges. With drug crimes that are reoccurring in the court system, mandatory minimums enable judges to give sentences to criminals without sympathy interfering with the penalty deserved. Along with this, it keeps criminals off

Ben Whishaw once said, "The criminal justice system, like any system designed by human beings, clearly has its flaws." For many years, the criminal justice system has been criticized for its many problems and errors; one in particular that caught my attention was the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. These laws basically set minimum sentences for certain crimes that judges cannot lower, even for extenuating circumstances. The most common of these laws deal with drug offenses and set mandatory minimum sentences for possession of a drug over a certain amount. Sentencing procedures can vary from jurisdiction to Jurisdiction. Most of these laws are ineffective and causes unnecessary jail overcrowding.

The mandatory minimum sentencing laws were passed as an effort to combat the war on drugs, with the anticipation that it would lock away high-level drug lords and discourage others from dealing drugs. However, the law requires judges to issue unwarranted, lengthy sentences without regard to the facts of the case. As a result, the law has overpopulated our prisons with nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, while the high-level drug lords are still free. This is because of the practice that one’s sentence can be reduced if they testify against others, and the high-level drug offenders have more to offer than those on the lower level. The Smarter Sentencing

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.

The average cost of keeping a single prisoner incarcerated in federal prison for a year is approximately $30,619.85 (Prisons Bureau, and Department of Justice). Multiply that number by the approximate 2,217,000 prisoners currently incarcerated and the cost of long sentences required by mandatory minimums starts to add up (Federal Bureau of Prisons).

When we talk about mandatory-minimum sentences, we first have to look at the time frame when this law came into effect. The country was in a period where violate crime was on an increase due to the drug trade. The demand for drugs in society was at an all time high rate.

Although violent offenses may serve longer sentencing however, mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent inmates can as well created to longer sentencing that may raise the aging prison population rapidly. For example, Barbara Scrivner has entered prison at age 29 and was sentenced for 30 years for her character as a minor member in a methamphetamine industry and delivery conspiracy (Families Against Mandatory Minimums, 2014). Sentences that run continuously can indeed increasing the length of staying in prison and can bring an individual into his or her later years. This can be illustrated by Atiba Parker, who committed in selling cocaine and possession of cocaine with total of three sentences (Jose, 2014). He was sentenced for 42 years in

Sentencing Commission, which specify that between 1998 and 2002 over 300 defendants were sentenced annually under the guideline that boosted penalties for drug activity. Tools are very limited when it comes to protecting certain locations and individuals from drug activities, there are also no specific weapons against those who sell drugs in or around drug treatment centers. To Avergun, the people that would sink that low as to target their trafficking activity at those with the least ability to resist such offers, those are the people who deserve the most severe punishment. The Department of Justice cannot and will not tolerate this conduct in America, and that is why they stands firmly behind the intent of this legislation to increase the punishment meted out to drug offenders. The Department of Justice supports mandatory minimum sentences in appropriate circumstances, of course. Mandatory minimum sentencing statues can provide a level of uniformity and predictability that regular sentencing procedures cannot. Mandatory minimum sentencing discourages certain types of criminal behavior by broadcasting the potential consequences of committing those offenses. They can also keep dangerous offenders in prison for long periods of time, thereby increasing the public’s safety. They also provide an important tool for prosecutors by providing defendants with a convincing incentive, that by cooperating with

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.