Mandatory Sentencing Report

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.

In 1984, President Ronald Regan signed into law the Sentencing Reform Act, that Congress enacted as part of the Comprehensive Crime Act. The Sentencing Reform act was created to help make the criminal justice system more accountable to the public with a system that contained structures or guides to aid in the use of judicial discretion. In addition, the Sentencing Reform Act created a bi-partisan group of people that were chosen for their expertise in the field of criminal justice, that were appointed by the President, were confirmed by the senate, and were directed to determine appropriate type(s) and lengths of sentences…they were to become the United States Sentencing Commission.

In the article “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy,” the author highlights how mandatory minimum sentencing is a policy that has failed in attempt to put an end to drug crimes. Batey stated that the attempts of federal and state thought that they could “get tough on crime,” particularly drug offense, by eliminating the sentence discretion of judges and restoring it with long minimum sentences that applied regardless of defendant's individual circumstances (Batey 24). Moreover, the mandatory minimum sentences take authority away from the judge and give it to the prosecutor, who decides whether to charge the defendant with a crime carrying a long minimum sentence or much less offense. Withal, mandatory minimum sentences have failed due to giving America’s power too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of persons too fearful to insist on a hearing that might have released them (Batey 25). Finally, Batey mentions that mandatory minimum sentence policy has filled prisons with the wrong people, which are minor players, not drug kingpins, and even some who are innocent (Batey 25).

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).

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.

Republican Representative Bill Konopnicki and Sen. Carolyn Allen released a report explaining the reason as to why the growth in Arizona’s incarceration rate has increased drastically based off of Arizona’s mandatory sentencing laws.

The main arrangement of rules was submitted to Congress on April 1987, and got to be law in November 1987. Somewhere around 1987 and 1989, more than 300 difficulties to the dependability of the rules and the Sentencing Commission blocked full across the country usage. Concurrent to the improvement and usage of the government sentencing rules, Congress instituted various statutes forcing required least sentences, generally for drug and weapons offenses, and for recidivist offender (McMillon, 1993). The Sentencing Commission drafted the new rules to suit these compulsory least procurements by tying down the rules to them. The United States Sentencing Commission, predictable with the command built by Congress, proclaims rules and revisions to the rules in an iterative manner. Alterations reflect changes in statutory maximums, new mandates from Congress to the Sentencing Commission, experimental research on the usage and impact of rules, the changing pattern of crime, developing case law, in need of a change in prosecution, and advancements in learning about viable crime control. In distinction, mandatory minimum sentencing required a large single-shot attempt at crime control proposed to deliver sensational results. They need, in any case, an implicit instrument for assessing their adequacy and simple conformity. Additionally, it increases the disparities in discipline among racial groups (McMillon,

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.