Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Guidelines And Guidelines

hit in the 60’s and as cocaine made its way in the 70’s, it was the “it” drug of the era. It was very popular amongst celebrities, executives, athletes, and the very rich. Even with its infiltration of the nation, the federal government didn’t get as involved as it did when crack hit the streets. The DEA mostly targeted big smugglers and major dealers. Cocaine started to get a negative rap only because of the violence and killings that started to come with it. Those who were out to stop the crack epidemic had something else in mind- to target the users. The users were the same users as those who used powdered cocaine. The Drug-Abuse Act of 1986 was the law that separated crack from cocaine in the eyes of the law. When crack cocaine first

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unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.

Inconsistent punishment currently issued by judges creates an increase in persons sentenced to prison. There is a moral dilemma by incarcerating a person for a non-violent crime based on the type of drug. Crack cocaine holds a much tougher sentencing guideline than powder cocaine. According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, prior to the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act, it took one hundred times as much powder cocaine as crack cocaine to receive the same five, ten, or twenty year mandatory minimum prison sentence. After the Fair Sentencing Act, the ratio is

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

This debunk the ideology of the targeting of crack for major crime organization and it was use towards imprisoning a specific racial community with punitive sentencing. Many studies soon came out in stereotyping crack cocaine as one of the most addictive drugs and created false claims that the media ran with. In 1995 the Sentencing commission challenge congress into asking for a reform of federal criminal sentencing through the matter. In 1993 there was a report by the Commission between the correlation between those who were sentenced to prison terms because of crack cocaine and in those who used the drug,”Report found that blacks accounted for 83.3 percent of federal crack cocaine convictions, Hispanics 7.1 percent and whites constituted a meager 4.1 percent.”(Percival, 124). The perception of these numbers would insinuate that African Americans tend to be the ones who either consume or distribute this drug but a Household survey showed a different perception in correlation with those who are imprisoned because of this drug, “ 52 percent of the people who reported using crack were white, 38 percent were black and 10 percent were hispanic”(Percival, 124). White people seemed to make up the more than half of the those who use it and yet are the ones who are least subjected to

1993 recorded the highest number of violent crimes in D.C. during the crack epidemic with 16,888 violent crimes recorded. It is apparent that the increased penalties and stiffer sentences for possession and distribution of crack cocaine did not result in a decrease in violent crime. Violent crime in D.C during the crack epidemic increased despite the imposition of stricter sentencing guidelines. During a subcommittee meeting on crime, terrorism, and homeland security in 2009 Judge Gohmert stated, “This sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine raises important public policy issues, on the one hand, because African-Americans comprise the majority of crack cocaine offenders to crack cocaine penalties that resulted in a disproportionate number of African-Americans serving longer sentences than powder cocaine offenders.”

What has society done about reforming sentencing laws in order to reduce the incarceration population? The fair sentencing Act which was signed by president Obama has helped reduce the number of inmates impacted by mandatory minimum sentencing by “reducing the disparity in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine required for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences and eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, it also increases penalties for major drug traffickers” (White House 2010). What the Act did was changed the ratio of Crack cocaine v Cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1 (U. S. Department of Justice 2010). This Act is beneficial because it

Since the inception of mandatory minimum cocaine laws in 1986 to the advent of the Armstrong case, not a single white offender had been convicted of a crack cocaine offense in federal courts serving Los Angeles and its six surrounding counties. Rather, virtually all white offenders were prosecuted in state court, where they were not subject to that drug’s lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. The impact of the decision to prosecute the black defendants in federal court was significant. In federal court they faced a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 10 years and a maximum of life without parole if convicted of selling more than 50 grams of crack. By contrast, if prosecuted in California state court, the defendants would have received a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum of five years (United States v. Armstrong, 1996).

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 question of how Blakely decision would affect the federal Guidelines were answered six months later in the Supreme Court decision of Booker. When Blakely case was heard in the Supreme Court, Booker was convicted of controlled substances offenses. Under the sentencing Guidelines, Booker faced a sentencing range between 210 to 262 months for having in possession 92.5 grams of crack cocaine with the intent to sell (Bloom, 2005; Lynch, 2005). The jury found Booker guilty on both offenses. The trial court after post-trial sentencing proceeding decided by a preponderance of the evidence that Booker sold 566 grams which resulted in an offense level of 36 plus two level enhancement applied for obstruction of justice of a total base level of 38, a sentencing range 360 months to life imprisonment (Bloom, 2005; Boone, 2007; Lynch, 2005). The sentencing judge was mandated under the Guidelines to apply the post-trial findings to sentence Booker between 360 months to life imprisonment (United States v. Booker, 375 F.3d 508; Bloom, 2005; Boone, 2007; Lynch, 2005). The judge imposed a sentence of 30 years.

Prior to the passage of this legislation, many people convicted with possession of drugs were given significantly long sentences under state laws; often this included individuals receiving life sentences for what is now known as simple possess (Courtwright, 2004). In this regard the Controlled substance act could be viewed as a liberalization of drugs policy by breaking up all drugs into schedules with differencing penalties. This does not mean that the legislation is not without

Drug trafficking, crack availability, and the Federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act led to mandatory minimum prison for dealers that will be sentenced. Originally, the sentencing for crack versus cocaine was “100:1” (Blumstein & Jonsson-federal sentencing reporter), meaning the amount of crack compared to the amount of powdered cocaine needed to set up a required minimum prison sentence.

In 1986 and 1988, as the public furor surrounding crack increased, Congress imposed mandatory sentencing laws which dramatically increased the penalties for possessing or trafficking in crack, which was perceived to be a much more serious problem than powder cocaine. The ratio between sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses was set at 100 to 1. As a result, a low level crack dealer may be subject to harsher penalties than a higher level powder cocaine

A mandatory minimum sentence occurs when judicial discretions are limited by law (Famm). Those who are convicted of certain crimes must be punished with at least the minimum number of years depending on the offense. Amanda Dollak who received her criminal justice degree at CTU, states “Mandatory sentences require every individual to receive the same punishment for similar offenses, regardless of how much a judge may object to the sentence”. These mandatory sentencing laws however vary from state to state, and in other countries. In 1994 California introduced a policy called “3 strikes you’re out”, which meant after a third criminal conviction the arrested person would be