Mandatory Sentencing Report

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 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.

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 This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.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

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.

People in The United States have been affected by the prison system, it has saved many lives, but on the other hand, people have prosecuted for minor crimes, to end up spending a lot of time in jail, which breaks apart families for far too long, it also creates a big rift between the people of this fine nation and their distrust of the law. Back in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan has issued a law that has cut funding for the mental institutions in the United states as called the deinstitutionalization of mental health, and to show ways of how we can bring our mental health system into place. Also in the same era laws have been put in place to put harsher laws on drug offenders called mandatory minimum sentencing, some people like non-violent, first-time drug offender are being treated the same way as a drug lord, and a way that we can fix that is push laws in congress to loosen minimum sentencing. Not to forget to mention the death penalty, how tax payers are wasting our money on keep prisoners on death row. Having a poor mental health system, strict mandatory minimum sentencing, racial bias in our prisons, and death penalty laws has led people to enter our prison system wrongfully. By fixing those rules we can help our society grow, and achieve greatness by doing right to our prison system.

Currently Arizona holds the ninth highest incarceration rate in the nation. Responsible for the drastic rate of incarcerated inmates, is the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have named Arizona the incarceration capital. By implementing the mandatory minimum sentencing law, the discretion that lay within the position as a judge is challenged by that of the prosecutor. With Arizona’s sentencing enhancement making little distinction between individuals who are responsible for either serious or petty crimes,

Similar to the Sentencing Reform Act, the purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission is to prevent inequity of sentencing among federal judges. It’s role is to serve as a strict guideline for Judges to adhere and limits the discretion at which a Judge may alter the length of sentence. The goal of this commission is to hamper factors such as race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc to affect the length of sentence, and aims for the guideline to stand on a neutral ground.

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

Federal sentencing practices and mandatory minimum laws are far too harsh, and ruins the lives of thousands of united citizens every year. In a modern era where the affects of drugs such as marijuana are well documented there is no logical reason that it should still be classified as a schedule 1 narcotic on a federal level. Even if it made sense in a sane world for marijuana to be a schedule 1 drug, the penalty for having it, or any other drug of the same classification is entirely too harsh. The unfair laws in place can lead to situations that no one in their right mind would consider fair or right. This is the kind of situation Clarence Aaron found himself in when he was 24 years old, and still finds himself in today. Aaron is serving 3 life sentences for being a part of a 1500 dollar cocaine deal in college. Ronald

mandatory minimum sentencing. The Committee decided the guidelines would be set the levels in the Drug Quantity Table (Hinojosa 1998). This would be done to create a set standard for levels 26 and 32. see table 1 {Table 1 About Here} These levels would work along with a standard set of program ranges that are above the statutory mandatory minimum sentencing laws (Weld 1986).

Policies that target a specific racial group have been an issue that has been among us for a very long time. An example of this would be the high incarceration rates connected to cocaine sentences. This situation can be connected to the sentences that treat crack violations more harshly than those associated with powder cocaine. It is important to examine in the histories of this hostile guidelines in order to understand how they invited so much criticism, why they were so controversial, why they were so resistant to change, and how nonetheless occurred. The Federal Sentencing guidelines adopted in the United States in 1986 have been the subject of a variety of criticisms over the past twenty five years. During the 1800’s and early 1900’s, it was available and legal and commonly used in tonics and other medications. (Smith, 1986) Following this, cocaine became identified a toxic, addictive, and harmful. Consequently, the 1970’s and 1980’s saw a dramatic increase in powder cocaine used by the middle class (Chappell & Maggard, 2007). Both powder and crack cocaine have been proven to be addictive and to produce similar effects when used in large doses, which can increase the heart rate and result in strokes and even death. (Reinarman & Levine, 1997).

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.

There are many factors that influence or have a bearing on the sentencing of an individual after the acknowledgement or conviction related to one’s guilt. Factors such as, prior criminal history and severity of the crime, but the factors that should not determine the sentence imposed are ones of race or ethnicity, gender, among others. It is clear to anyone associated with the criminal justice system, from law enforcement personnel, to the judicial system, that sentencing of some individuals has shown a disparity regarding gender, and ethnicity. Now this is not to say that there is an intentional outright decision to sentence these groups to a more extensive sentence or sentence at all, just based on their race or ethnicity.

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.