Mandatory Sentencing

“One punch” assaults known as “The King Hit” have cost over 90 lives since the year 2000. New South Wales have had the largest number of one punch assaults which is 28, followed by Queensland and Victoria who have recorded 24 cases each. Picture this, imagine a teenage boy who is having fun with his mates, and he gets “King Hit” by a stranger in which had taken his life. You would think that the killer would receive a very harsh prison sentence right? Well that isn’t always the case. One person who was a victim in a situation very similar to this. Thomas Kelly. Thomas Kelly is an 18 year old boy who was “King Hit” in Kings Cross in New South Wales. All it took was one punch to end his life. The attacker received a 4 year

Over the past decade within Australia, the issue of one-punch violence has remained at the forefront of media and public scrutiny. Many acts of unprovoked violence resulting in death have generated considerable action from communities, organisations and legislators. This national moral panic has resulted in an influx of legislation across the states. The Victorian State Government has recently imposed the Sentencing Amendment (Coward 's Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters) Act 2014, introducing the ‘toughest’ one-punch laws in the country.

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

When we talk about mandatory-minimum sentences, we first have to look at the time frame when this law came into effect. The country was in a period where violate crime was on an increase due to the drug trade. The demand for drugs in society was at an all time high rate.

The correctional field has many things that it does well, and it probably has just as many that it does not do well. The correctional system is always evolving to help protect the people who need it the most. The correctional field is also tasked with many services that it may need to cut spending on, and may things that is should increase spending on. One of the things I believe that our correctional system does very well, and should continue to fund is super maximum security prisons. These prisons seem to work very well in keeping some of the worse criminals in the correctional system tamed. The first start of a super maximum security prison started in a maximum security prison in 1983 when a prison guard was stabbed to

What is the expectation when someone commits a crime? Many would say that offenders require strict punishment including harsh sentencing moreover that rehabilitation is without value. Two conflicting views are being examined from Eugene H. Methvin, who is a supporter of mandatory sentencing as well as ‘three strikes’ sentencing that can result in life sentences being mandatory for repeat offenders even if they are non-violent crimes. On the other hand, is David Shichor, who supports sentencing that is efficient and fair especially since harsh sentencing does not reduce crime. Two works are reviewed, Eugene Methvin is his paper Mugged by Reality and David Shichor in his Three Strikes as a Public Policy.

This policy brief, intended for top United States policy makers, seeks to argue for the repeal of mandatory sentencing for nonviolent drug offences. The document will argue that current mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines constitute cruel and unusual punishment, something which is in direct violation of the Eight Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and goes against the core ideals of the American justice system which promises fair and equal treatment for all under the law. It will also be argued that while the practice has not succeeded in accomplishing its main objectives (reducing drug use and related crime), it has succeeded in disproportionately burdening minority populations with lengthy prison sentences sometimes exceeding those given

An illicit drug is actually just a drug that is being abused illegally. A few examples of some commonly heard of illicit drugs are cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. However, not every illicit drug is actually illegal to possess. Prescription drugs, such as hydrocodone, oxycodone, and morphine are often taken without being prescribed, which is illegal.

Judges are not utilizing more alternative sentencing options****may merge this one with brown factors bearing****.

The criminal justice system has four goals they strive for. These goals are discourage, punishment, damage, and rehabilitation. Of these four, discourage, punishment, and damage mean the same thing. When a crime is committed, punishment and rehabilitation is needed to correct a problem (Punishment vs. Rehabilitation: A Proposal for Revising Sentencing Practices, 1991). When the delinquent has departed from prison and enters the real life, they tend to get other issues other than the usual drug and alcohol use if they haven’t already been addicted.

Federal statutory mandatory minimum penalties have existed since the early days of the nation,1 and they have continually evolved in the centuries since. As policy views have shifted over time, Congress2 and many others3 have continued to examine the role and scope of these mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal system.4 For more than thirty years, the United States Sentencing Commission (“the Commission”)5 has played a central role in this process, working with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and other interested parties to ensure that sentencing policy promotes the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”).6 Consistent with its statutory role,7 the Commission has continued to inform the

In fact, many studies have been conducted to study that issue but none of the studies have been able to yield persistent results. For example, Marvell found in his study that when more people are incarcerated the crime rate decreases (Lim, 2008, p. 3). However, Liedka found in his study that when more people are incarcerated the crime rate increases (Lim, 2008, p. 3). Regardless of the results that these studies have yielded, lawmakers passed laws that created mandatory and longer sentences, thus making punishment more severe for criminals while at the same time creating the beginnings of mass incarceration (Lim, 2008, p. 12).

I am writing to express my thoughts on the mandatory sentencing laws that personally affect me and my boyfriend Kamel Terrell who is currently serving a 10 year plea bargain sentence. My boyfriend Kamel Terrell owned and operated 778 Ultra Sports Bar and Lounge in Burlington, NC (Alamance County). He was the owner of this sports bar for 3 years before deciding to close it due to recent crimes of violence involving gang activity and fights breaking out from people being under the influence of alcohol. Kamel Terrell was not the actual owner of the building but rather the tenant of the establishment as a business owner. Once special events started drawing large crowds in attendance Kamel and the land lord started to constantly be harassed by the

When America changed the sentencing policies for crimes, primarily drug crimes, in America, the effect this change would have in the poor communities were impossible to imagine. The policies which were changed to get tougher on drug crimes on the federal level followed with mass incarceration in the prison system. This was especially true with young African American males in largely poor communities. So these policies not only created a mass incarceration but also racially targeted certain race in America. These procedures which were created to protect the community and the streets actually did nothing but drive a wedge in the relationships between those same communities, law enforcement, and policy makers.

Mandatory Sentencing, defined by definitions.uslegal.com, are those sentences which a judicial officer is required to impose regardless of the circumstances of the offense. This means, the judicial officer has no discretion to impose a higher or lower sentence depending upon the nature of crime. In my way of thinking, there is something wrong with the way people are being convicted, and how easily people get off compared to others - and it needs to be changed.