Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Research Paper

seem like the best way at first, in the long run money would be better

“Over 40 year ago president nixon, Declared Drug abuse public enemy number one, starting an unprecedented global Campaign, the war on drug.

President Nixon first declared the “war on drugs” on June of 1971. This came after heavy drug use during the 1960s. New York in particular, had a rise in heroin use. After Nixon’s declaration, states began decriminalizing the possession and distribution of marijuana and other drugs. Many small drug offences led to a mandatory fifteen years to life. This Drug War has led to an increase of incarceration rates since. One of the earliest laws that followed Nixon’s announcement were the Rockefeller Drug Laws that to not only failed to deter crime but also lead to other problems in the criminal justice system. With the Rockefeller Drug Laws came heavy racial disparity of those incarcerated for drug related crimes. Although the Obama Administration has begun reforms, the new President Elect Trump’s views may bring all the efforts back down.

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).

In the beginning of the documentary, The House I Live In, President Nixon gives a speech declaring, “America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive” In 1971, this speech made Preside Nixon the first president to ever declare a “war on drugs” in America. He fought by battling, both the supply and demand for drugs. Karst J. Besteman (1989) describes this “war” as a “strong initiative against drug dealers and expansion of drug treatment facilities” (p. 290). The beginning of Nixon’s “war” was focused on providing treatment and rehabilitation, after the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1973, the focal point of the

“Over 40 year ago president nixon, Declared Drug abuse public enemy number one, starting an unprecedented global Campaign, the war on drug.

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.

Vol. 82, no. 1. Winter 2002. p. 24. Online: EBSCOHost. Santiago Canyon College Library. August 6, 2017.

The crossing point of racial development with the criminal equity framework is one of the longstanding terms. Today, there are more diverse qualities of initiative in the court framework; however race still assumes to be a basic part in numerous criminal equity results. An essential part of the part of race in the criminal equity framework identifies with sentencing in light of the fact, that the possibility of a racially biased methodology damages the goals of equal treatment under the law under which the framework is preceded. By outlining, discretion is being taken away from prosecutors and judges due to the sentencing law in order to force cruel sentences, despite of the circumstances (Bjerck, 2005). Mandatory sentencing started in the

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

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

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

Creative sentences for juveniles fluctuate case to case and is strictly based upon the judges will. Creative sentencing includes but is not restricted to probationary sentences (house arrest, supervised probation, unsupervised probation), community service (picking up trash, volunteering, helping others), and or completing a GED if the individual dropped out of school. The majority of judges recognize that juveniles make mistakes or are with others who make bad choices. Depending on the severity of the crime, judges may chose a creative sentence for the individual instead of a harsher punishment.

The federal government implemented a new bill in 2011, which increased the minimum mandatory sentence for violent and drug crimes. However, increasing the sentence did not help to decrease the crime rate in Blueville. Minimum sentences are thought to be successful when there is a certainty of being caught, the severity of the punishment matches the severity of the crime and the punishment is applied as swiftly as possible. However, the severity of the punishment does not mean that individuals will stop committing crimes as this does not affect the certainty that they will be caught. This could be one of the reasons crime rates remained in Blueville as the number

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.