Throughout the years, the question of whether those who commit the same crime should receive the same sentence or not has created controversy because of the mandatory sentencing laws, though, in reality, no two crimes are exactly alike and neither are the circumstances of the people involved. For women, in particular, the issue of mandatory sentencing has increased the population of women in prison. In the March 3, 2017 issue of the Congressional Quarterly Researcher titled “Women in Prison: Should they be treated differently than men?” the author, Sarah Glazer, had an anecdote given by Ramona Brant that discussed the involvement of women in a crime where they were not selling drugs, is usually due to a relationship, which they received the
Women are twice as likely as men to avoid incarceration if convicted of a crime. Whether or not this is fair, though, is highly debated. Some politicians argue that women’s prisons be abolished all together, while Men’s Rights Activists push for equal sentencing for comparable crimes. It has been proven that judges tend to give women less time in prison, or no incarceration at all, and the reasons for this support the imbalance in sentencing. Though many view women’s tendency to receive lighter punishments as unfair, it is justified that women receive this treatment because of legal rules that surround the subject, the statistics that show women commit less serious and violent crimes, and how women being incarcerated impacts those around them.
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
The mandatory minimum sentencing is about a fixed ruling of a crime that a judge is expected to deliver. Congress has enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws. It was to impose the mandatory sentencing an offender would receive for crimes that were committed. The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes committed on society, such as violent, drug-related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat offender then it should be left up the presiding judge to serve out justice. People who commit low level crimes should be punished but not to the extent of going to prison for a long period of time. Congress has enacted these guidelines so that the criminal justice system would not be burden with smaller crimes or be overwhelmed. Lengthy sentencing hearings seldom are necessary, the disputes about sentencing elements must be resolved with sensitivity concern and carefulness. A dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination then a judge will use his discretion to hand down equal and fair judgement. Legislator statements during debates on mandatory
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
How beneficial or detrimental is the effects of parenting from the penal system for the children and families involved? How much of an influence is the effects of parenting from the penal system is affecting the child’s developmental skills? Is parenting from the penal system, exposing the children to the risk factors that may increase the chances of them being incarcerated? These are the typical questions and concerns that are being questioned when researchers are gathering their conclusion.
The United States criminal justice system, an outwardly fair organization of integrity and justice, is a perfect example of a seemingly equal situation, which turns out to be anything but for women. The policies imposed in the criminal justice system affect men and women in extremely dissimilar manners. I plan to examine how gender intersects with the understanding of crime and the criminal justice system. Gender plays a significant role in understanding who commits what types of crimes, why they do so, who is most often victimized, and how the criminal justice system responds to these victims and offenders. In order to understand the current state of women and the way in which gender relates to crime and criminal justice, it is first
Drug trafficking, crack availability, and the Federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act led to mandatory minimum prison for dealers that will be sentenced. Originally, the sentencing for crack versus cocaine was “100:1” (Blumstein & Jonsson-federal sentencing reporter), meaning the amount of crack compared to the amount of powdered cocaine needed to set up a required minimum prison sentence.
Overcrowding prisons at the cost of the taxpayers’ dollar, people who need rehab sitting in prison for years at a time instead of getting the help that they need, and judges cannot do anything about it. Mandatory minimum sentencing has taken away judges’ discretion when sentencing cases. Drug offenses often receive heavier sentences than they should due to the use of mandatory minimums leaving people to question the fairness of the justice system. The use of mandatory minimums when sentencing drug offenses wrongfully incarcerates the convicted for longer than necessary rather than providing the rehabilitation the individual needs to break their habit and re-enter the public.
“We [the United States] imprison more of our own people than any other country on earth, including China, which has four times our population, or in human history” (Bloom). Due to the decades past between the “war on drugs” and “Get Tough on Crime” which has left a trail of broken tears and a failed system. The mass incarceration boom consisted of several tactics such as just desserts and three strike laws. The model may not have been directed toward the African American community, but the numbers have not lied, a large chunk of inmates are those of color. Surprisingly a lot of people who have been locked up as well as doing time currently are not all violent, actually most of the inmates are incarcerated for nonviolent charges. The guilty,
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.
Judges are not utilizing more alternative sentencing options****may merge this one with brown factors bearing****.
Assessing the consequences of our country’s soaring imprison rates has less to do with the question of guilt versus innocence than it does with the question of who among us truly deserves to go to prison and face the restrictive and sometimes brutally repressive conditions found there. We are adding more than one thousand prisoners to our prison and jail systems every single week. The number of women in prisons and jails has reached a sad new milestone. As women become entangled with the war on drugs, the number in prison has increased if not double the rate of incarceration for men. The impact of their incarceration devastates thousands of children, who lose their primary caregiver when Mom goes to prison.
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 number of women incarcerated is growing at a rapid pace. This calls for a reevaluation of our correction institutions to deal with women’s involvement in crime. Increasing numbers of arrests for property crime and public order offenses are outpacing that of men. The “War on Drugs” has a big influence on why our prisons have become overcrowded in the last 25 years. Women are impacted more than ever because they are being convicted equally for drug and other offenses. Female criminal behavior has always been identified as minor compared to Male’s criminal behavior. Over the years women have made up only small part of the offender populations. There is still only a small
Female Criminality consists of several outdated statistics regarding the rise of female offending. However, in viewing the current research on the subject, it appears that the overall theme of this dissertation's discussion is still relevant despite changes in the accompanying statistics as seen in viewing the following topics: the rise in female offending; the continual rise that females are committing more crimes than men; and the types of crimes that women are committing. In viewing Bruce Gross's 2009 article, "Battle of the Sexes: The Nature of Female Delinquency," as well as Elizabeth Cauffman's 2008 article, "Understanding the Female Offender," one can begin to see where current statistics regarding the female criminal lie.