Mandatory Minimums And The United States ' Justice System

The first section is for the mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison for first and second-degree murder and treason. The second section deals with firearms offences. The third section of mandatory minimum sentences address repeat offenders in seven distinct categories, which involve impaired driving and possession of unauthorized weapons (Canada, 2013). The last category of MMS in Canada deals with hybrid offences. These were implemented in the Canadian legislation in 1995. If an offender commits a crime that has been determined to result in a mandatory minimum sentence within the Canadian Legislation, the judge must implement that sentence no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors are. Due to this sentencing legislation, many innocent people are serving time in prison due to a false conviction and the lack of judicial discretion in their individual case. Even though mandatory minimum sentences offer more costs then rewards, some politicians, community members and victims of crime still support it due to the proposed retributive and deterrent effects. There have been many cases and arguments against mandatory minimum sentences especially due to the fact that it restricts the judge’s discretion during the sentencing process. These will be discussed in more depth throughout this paper.

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unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.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

1. Mandatory minimum sentencing is a protocol made to provide accurate sentencing for a crime. The purpose is to provide a standard where judges cannot reduce sentences, in order to encourage a fairer judicial system.

Another law that benefits private prisons is mandatory minimum sentences. This is a law that ensures a minimal number of years is sentenced for a certain crime, as decided by the Supreme Court. The law, therefore, doesn’t allow for the consideration of individual circumstances such as criminal history. This law has caused a tremendous increase in the prison population. The mandatory minimum sentence law is enforced on judges, but not prosecutors. However, under the circumstance, it is considered that prosecutors who would gain professionally from successful convictions, do not have sufficient incentive to exercise their discretion responsibly.

Secondly, they should be addressed the needs of offenders and the deficits in their lives that contributed to their offending. And thirdly, sentences should not be severe, intrusive, or damaging to an offender’s later decarceration to live a righteous life than is minimally necessary to achieve valid purposes of the sentence he or she receives (Tonry 508). An addition to these are proportionality, which means that sentences should correspond in severity to the seriousness of the crimes which they are inflicted. Also, regularity, which signifies that sentences should be guided by official standards to make the process clear, procedures fair, and allow judges to be more accountable (Tonry 508). Moreover, the American Criminal Code must be taken into consideration. Two features must be altered if the sentencing is to become fair, effective, and just. Firstly, the harsh sentencing laws must be revoked, and secondly the limits, that matches the offense seriousness, must be put on the lawful sentences (Tonry 514). Moreover, Tonry mentioned about future changes that, “If adopted, they would greatly reduce the number of people in prison in future years, but their adoption would not significantly reduce the scale of American imprisonment in 2015 or in 2020. Doing that will require enactment of new laws authorizing reconsideration of sentences now being served (Tonry 523).

The concept of mandatory minimum sentencing has been plaguing the justice system of the United States of America for too many years and therefore must be abolished. If mandatory minimum sentencing were to be done away with, then the criminal justice system could finally start to bring desperately needed change to itself and start to get back to where it needs to be; a system that takes people with a problem and returns a reformed individual capable of positively contributing to society. By getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, the prison populations could be reduced, allowing for more attention to be given to the reformation of each individual giving them a better chance at success. The research shows that getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing will be more cost effective, keep prison populations lower, limit unjust sentencing, and make sure that the punishment that an individual receives is proportional to the crime that they have been convicted of.

Mandatory minimum sentences are set by Congress and Judges can't change the sentencing. They apply to drug offenses and require automatic minimum prison terms for certain crimes. For example, selling 28 grams of crack cocaine triggers a minimum sentence of five years in prison. Even though Robyn's judge believed that Robyn deserved lower sentencing, it was not under his discretion. Bush-Baskette (2000) commented on how mandatory minimum sentencing standards had a major impact on women and being the sole caretaker of minor children was no longer being considered for sentencing purposes. It is clear that Robyn had become sober therefore her sentencing should be less than 10 years. Her sentencing not only impacts her life, but also impacts her children. Prison is not an effective treatment to drug use and crimes, especially low-level

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

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.

The implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing has allowed for the substitution of prosecutorial discretion in the place of judicial discretion. The purpose of mandatory minimums was to eliminate or reduce sentencing disparities. However, they have simply shifted discretion allowing for prosecutors to have unreviewable discretion over whether to even charge a violation of law with the mandatory minimum sentencing. Unreviewed discretion caused by mandatory minimums may be allowing innocent people to slip through the cracks. James B. Halsted of the University of Florida conducted a study that examined anti-drug statutes (in the 1980s) by analyzing how the criminal justice system could possibly be incarcerating marginally culpable or innocent defendants due to ease of convictability of those prosecuted under mandatory minimum statutes (Halsted). Halsted makes a claim that “it appears that the whole purpose of mandatory minimum sentences structures is to ensure that trial judges have practically no discretion when determining the amount of punishment they will impose when sentencing a defendant convicted of a crime like trafficking” (Halsted). Placing discretion in the hands of prosecutors is clearly more disagreeable than allowing judicial discretion. Prosecutors do not have proper training in exercising discretion and do not have incentive to exercise discretion responsibly.

Mandatory minimum sentences are court decisions where judicial discretion is limited by law. Usually when people are convicted of certain crimes they must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. The article I picked to review is an article on mandatory minimum sentences. The article reviews the pros and cons of mandatory sentencing. I will go over the pros and cons described in the article and give my opinion on how I feel about them.

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.

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.

On your recent broadcast about mandatory minimums, I noticed very distinct things that keep the viewers watching and some things that might make people turn away from the show. The first fantastic thing that I noticed was how well the positioning of the media that you are discussing is displayed in the upper left hand of the television. This is what gives the viewers a better perception of what you are specifically talking about. Also I like when you bring the media to a full view perception when the scene is emotional, or possibly touching to the audience. The viewers can then be touched with a bigger picture, literally. One criticism about that is that you should not always agree with what you display, you need to have some