There have been numerous legislative changes put through that have affected the lengths of sentences being handed down to convicts. Some states have already made these changes while others are considering doing the same. For example, in Massachusetts, the State House is examining the possibility of putting an end to mandatory sentencing, which has been in effect for decades and takes away discretion from judges when deciding on sentencing. One particular sticking point involves the War on Drugs. Opponents say that mandatory minimum requirements have done little or nothing to reduce crime, the effect on communities, or the costs involved with charging offenders (Massachusetts lawmakers, 2015). Other states have already taken steps to make changes, …show more content…
A lot of it has taken place over the past few years in focuses more on changes towards nonviolent offenses, such as drug-related charges. There have been three basic approaches to implementing these changes. The first of these involves keeping mandatory minimum penalties in place while allowing a judge to skirt around such as sentence if it seems inappropriate to the situation. A second idea is to decrease the effects of automatic sentence enhancements, or laws that require penalty increases under certain circumstances. Some states that have already done this include Nevada, Louisiana, Kentucky, Colorado, and Indiana (Subramanian & Delaney, 2014). The third involves simply repealing mandatory minimum laws altogether, which North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Delaware, and Ohio have already done. It has been found that mandatory minimums have contributed to overcrowding and racial disparity within the prison system, placing it at nearly 140% capacity (New sentencing guidelines, 2014). More than half of these are serving time for drug violations.How the removal or modification of these laws affects the prison population remains to be …show more content…
As mentioned earlier, the three strikes law in California has led to ridiculously harsh punishment for relatively minor offenses, simply because the offender has a history of breaking the law. Truth in sentencing laws seem to be geared more toward ensuring funding of the prison system than ensuring the proper sentence is given in relation to the severity of the crime committed. Though they don’t seem to contribute to the overcrowding of prisons very much on their own, it could certainly be argued that they play at least a minor role in this
Mandatory minimum laws, which set different minimum sentences for crack and powder cocaine possession, are policies that are inflexible, “one-size-fits-all” sentencing laws that undermine the constitutional principle that the punishment should fit the crime and undermine the judicial power to punish an individual in context of the specific circumstances. Similarly, 3-strikes laws also ignores judicial discretion. Truth-in-sentencing policies refer to policies created to have a convict serve the full sentence, regardless of good behavior or other deterrent. These policies are created to only incapacitate people—more specifically minorities—not to rehabilitate them. More people in jail and longer sentences are not helping ensure public safety.
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 United States prison population has grown seven-fold over the past forty years, and many Americans today tend to believe that the high levels of incarceration in our country stem from factors such as racism, socioeconomic differences, and drugs. While these factors have contributed to the incarceration rate present in our country today, I argue that the most important reason our country has such a high incarceration rate is the policy changes that have occurred since the 1970s. During this time, the United States has enacted policy changes that have produced an astounding rise in the use of imprisonment for social control. These policy changes were enacted in order to achieve greater consistency, certainty, and severity and include sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three strikes laws (National Research Council 2014). Furthermore, I argue that mandatory sentencing has had the most significant effect on the incarceration rate.
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are fundamentally un-American. The Boston University Law Journal states that “mandatory minimum sentences provide plenary decision-making power to prosecutors of the executive branch, while heavily restricting the discretion of the judiciary”(Riley, 2011, p. 286). This significantly weakens the checks and balances of the criminal justice system. This means that mandatory minimums are in conflict with the
In the 1990s, states began to execute mandatory sentencing laws for repeat offenders. This statute became known as “three strike laws”. The three strikes law increases prison sentence for people convicted of a felony. If you have two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, it limits the ability that offenders have to receive a punishment other than life sentencing. By 2003 over half of the states and federal government had enacted the “three strike laws”. The expectation behind it was to get career criminals off the street for the good of the public. However, the laws have their connoisseurs who charge sentences that are often excessive to the crimes committed and that incarcerate of three strike inmates for 25 years to life. Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court has upheld three strike laws and had rejected the fact that they amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
If mass incarceration is a cancer of society, mandatory minimum sentencing laws are the tumors that exacerbate society’s condition. These mandatory minimum sentencing laws require a certain length of prison time if
Longer sentences has been a major cause of mass incarceration. Thus, changing how governments respond to all crime, not just drug crime, is critical to reducing the size of prison
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
Today, more than 2 million Americans are incarcerated in either a state facility, federal correctional facility or a local installation (Batey,2002). Due to longer sentences, incorporating harsh sentencing guidelines, and mandatory minimum punishments (NeSmith,2015). With each inmate costing taxpayers an average of $30,000 annually. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 were increased sentences for a broad range of offenses, as well as establishing federal penalties for most murders and a large number of other crimes already subject to state law (Batey,2002). In addition to reducing the discretion of state judicial systems; as well as 85 percent of sentence satisfaction and establishing a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of three serious violent crimes or drug offenses (NeSmith,2015). .
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
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported 6.7 million people were supervised by adult correctional systems in the United States at year end 2015. President Obama has conveyed tax payer pay $80 billion dollars to house incarcerate individuals yearly. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 limited federal judge sentencing discretions. In 1980 the USA had 500k people incarcerated, the population of prisoners has more than doubled the last two decades. The United States Mandatory sentencing requires offenders receive a predetermined minimum sentencing for some offenses. Since the implementation of mandatory sentencing, prison populations have risen sharply with sky rocking costs. On certain offenses, Federal judges no longer have discretion on the sentence length. Mandatory sentencing laws have shifted the power of punishment to the prosecutor as they have the discretion of charges brought against offenders. According to Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy in their article “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017,” the United State criminal justice leads the world in the percentage of its citizens incarcerated. Mandatory minimum sentencing has led to large prison populations, skyrocketing costs and social family challenges.
Similarly, all of these laws either increase the period of incarceration for violent crime, expand the number of crimes that are included in the violent crime category, or both. Equally, all 25 states except for Kansas, had preexisting laws that focused on the repetition of violent offenders. Additionally, a large portion of states new legislations had reduced judicial circumspection at the sentencing phase of the process. It is clear that there are specific limitations on judges’ decisions when it comes to sentencing guidelines.
Bernick & Larkin suggest that “mandatory minimum sentences are the product of good intention, but good intentions do not always make good policy; good results are also necessary (Bernick & Larkin)”. You could not described this in a better way. The practice of mandatory minimum sentences ensure any criminal acts carries a punishment. Moreover, the punishment is established resulting in less sentencing disparity for similar crimes. Additionally, mandatory minimum sentences remove unjustifiably lenient sentences. The resulting in firm enactment of mandatory punishment meant to alert the consequences of an individual actions. Basically, if you commit the crime, get ready to do the time. However, there are cons just as there pros to mandatory minimum
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.
Another great trend in sentencing is the three strikes laws which basically states that felons who commit three felonies are incarcerated for a very long time