Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Guidelines For The United States

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unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.

Three salient points from the films/lectures were assessments of change from the five stages of change model (Norcross, j. c., n.d.), the Fair Sentencing Act for mandatory minimum sentences (American Civil Liberties Union, 2010), and eliminating government involvement in regulation of drugs and alcohol substance, while allowing the various states to manage control (ABC News.com, 2007).

The mandatory sentence of two years’ imprisonment is unconstitutional because it is “cruel and unusual punishment” which infringes upon the accused’s right not to be subjected to such treatment. Firstly, it is determined that the mandatory minimum sentence in this case is grossly disproportionate to the accused’s circumstances and would be reasonably foreseeable that the provision would have the same overreaching effect on other offenders. Secondly, the provision in question in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not saved by section 1 of the Charter as it has failed the prescribed Oakes test. The test gives weight to the law’s objective in comparison to the means of achieving it, which in this case, impaired too heavily on the right of the accused.

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

Republican Representative Bill Konopnicki and Sen. Carolyn Allen released a report explaining the reason as to why the growth in Arizona’s incarceration rate has increased drastically based off of Arizona’s mandatory sentencing laws.

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

Federal sentencing practices and mandatory minimum laws are far too harsh, and ruins the lives of thousands of united citizens every year. In a modern era where the affects of drugs such as marijuana are well documented there is no logical reason that it should still be classified as a schedule 1 narcotic on a federal level. Even if it made sense in a sane world for marijuana to be a schedule 1 drug, the penalty for having it, or any other drug of the same classification is entirely too harsh. The unfair laws in place can lead to situations that no one in their right mind would consider fair or right. This is the kind of situation Clarence Aaron found himself in when he was 24 years old, and still finds himself in today. Aaron is serving 3 life sentences for being a part of a 1500 dollar cocaine deal in college. Ronald

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.

While the United States’ justice system has been a model for many countries around the world, the injustice of certain aspects in our court’s system is prominent. Mandatory minimums are just one example the of injustice in our justice system. The Supreme Court has “…casted doubt on the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines used for nearly two decades” (Kenneth Jost, 2004), despite this, nothing has been done to correct it. And while the idea of mandatory minimums is a good thing, they don’t work in the American justice system or in current American society.

Mandatory minimums have been wreaking havoc on the prison systems for years by giving first offense, non-violent, drug offenders outrageous sentences. This has been clogging up the system with low-level drug offenders. According to the US Department of Justice, the federal prisons were filled with 50% of non-violent drug offenders, while 7% of that same total are violent offenders (1,17). Having such a high amount of low level prisoners incarcerated is wasting taxpayer’s money, the Federal Register explains “The fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2014 was $30,619.85” (Samuels). That’s only one person, now multiply that number by the

Unnecessary rules and regulations is what have become of the required minimum sentencing laws. Laws that are put intact so that Congress might have control over what happens with a convict in the judiciary court system. It is essential that these laws are dealt away with; they are creating greater harms than benefits for the public. They are costing the American people from their money, abstinence from their families, and to some extent even rights as U.S. citizens. The United States Congress should repeal mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

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.

I propose to abolish the mandatory minimum sentencing because it is costly to our criminal justice system. However, the system needs to be restructured due to the overcrowding of our jails and prison. Our prison is overcrowded with an offender who was sentenced for drug traffic and carry a weapon (Schmallegar, F. & Smykia, J. 2014) The man that at the bottom of the pole is not the main problem because he does not have the resource to transport drugs to different countries or cities. The law needs to focus on the distributor that takes advantage of the economic status of the poor by using them as the dope boy. If this issue is not addressed the taxpayer money will continue to pay for the housing of little fish drug dealer because he will be

Rand Paul once stated, "The injustice of mandatory minimum sentences is impossible to ignore when you hear the stories of the victims" (Flatow, 2013). There has been a great amount of controversy concerning the mandatory sentencing laws throughout the years'. Mandatory minimum sentencing refers to a minimum term given to a person convicted of a crime, instead of allowing Judges to determine punishment. In the article pertaining to mandatory minimum sentences, it stated the reasoning for enforcement, " Congress also decided to eliminate the courts’ discretion to exercise leniency in some instances by requiring courts to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for certain types of crimes. (Bernick & Larkin, 2014). Instead of allowing the U.S. Sentencing

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.