Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Essay

Less restrictive drug laws would lower the population of prisons. Courts deal with a high amount cases due to drugs. According to Goldberg (2012), the criminal justice system is becoming ineffective because of the high amounts of drug cases which, is overburdening the system. This means that there are too many cases that are being processed through the system, which creates an issue of overcrowding in prisons. The mandatory minimum laws create a burden for the system because all of the cases have to be processes creating an ineffective system. According to Nutt, King, and Nichols (2013), there are extreme legal consequences for drug possession. Less restrictive laws would help alleviate the burden on the system. By having less restrictive laws the amount of cases would drop greatly and then the system would be more effective than it is right now.

This journal article discusses how the government has increased “mandatory sentencing” using “aggressive initiatives” for drug related crimes. Additionally, these government implemented sentencing guidelines have made the prison population grow

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unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.

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

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.

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).

In the United States, we see harsh minimum punishments given to drug criminals because the court system, in order

Instead of removing the source and preventing entry at the border, the federal and state governments decided to punish minor drug offenses with extremely intolerant minimum prison sentences. The article compares the theory of supply reduction with emptying out the Mississippi River with a spoon, stating that “the river is always going to win” (Apocalypse Now, 177). This quote shows how he can get rid of an entire problem with just a small solution that is only targeting one of the minor problems.I think instead of the minimum mandatory prison time that judges and juries should look at cases based on the individual person and the individual crime rather than generalizing people

The mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes should be abolished. Treatment and rehabilitation efforts

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

While throughout history, there have always been some types of mandatory minimums, for example, “English common law required the death penalty for all felonies” (Greenblatt, Nathan). Up until the 1980s however, United States judges had a wide scope of discretion with sentencing for convictions. Judges were almost entirely free to sentence the convicted criminal however they wished. In the later 1960s and early 1970s, many legal activists disagreed with how sentencing was being conducted and pushed for sentencing reform, thus beginning in the mid-1980s, Congress began passing legislation on sentencing, giving birth to the ideas of mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines (Bernick and Larkin). “Mandatory minimums require uniformed, automatic, binding prison terms of a particular length

Since the beginning of the war on drugs, there has been a 500% increase in incarcerations, most of them being mandatory minimum sentences. Although mandatory minimums were instituted in order to combat crime and are still sentenced in court today, research suggests that this deterrent has little to no effect.While white people make up the majority of drug arrests, minorities make up three fourths of individuals with mandatory minimums. Contrary to the claim that mandatory minimums are fair and equal, they contribute to America's problem of racial discrimination and prejudice, and mass incarceration.

Mandatory sentencing involves the implementation of legislation to remove an element of judicial discretion by imposing minimum or mandatory sentences for a particular offence or type of offender. From the perspective of society, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the rule of law in ensuring that laws are predictable and applied equally across all individuals by aiming to match the punishment to the crime, as well as reduce crime and recidivism. Depending on the outlook taken, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the individual’s right to a fair trial as it encourages consistency but by the same token a conflict arises in that it strips the judiciary of the power to tailor sentences to the unique circumstances of each case.

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.