Police officers clearly face consequences for not making enough arrests, but they also have indirect financial incentives to make arrests, such as potential promotions. Police officers don’t get more direct incentives, such as commissions, from making an arrest, but if an arrest occurs towards the end of their shift they can get overtime pay. That case can also lead to more overtime pay if their court appearance is scheduled at an off duty hour. Consequently, one officer told The Nation about how the police radio is often silent for periods of time until minutes before their shifts change. Numerous petty arrests are then heard over the scanners. Some officers even list other officers as witnesses who had little or nothing to do with the …show more content…
They also created mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Consequently, anyone who supports the drug war isn’t truly “tough on crime.” Mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses often result in violent offenders gaining early release before non-violent drug offenders because many violent crimes don’t have the same mandatory minimum sentences.
These kinds of bureaucratic policies have taken away a judge’s most important duty and manufactured an overpopulated prison system. In addition, mandatory minimum sentences are actually much harsher than the “tough on crime” crowd realizes, according Judge Mark W. Bennett, a federal district judge in Iowa. Drug cases take up 56% of his docket. “Northwest Iowa is one of the most conservative regions in the country, and these are people who, for the most part, think judges are too soft on crime. Yet, for all the times I’ve asked jurors after a drug conviction what they think a fair sentence would be, never has one given a figure even close to the mandatory minimum. It is always far lower,” says Bennett.
TV and movies have crafted an unrealistic image of the criminal justice system. Our court system actually operates with the speed of the fast
In the U.S. the “War on Drugs” has been at the forefront of debates and discussion since it was formally declared by President Nixon in 1971. This war continues to have many problematic consequences today, the most notable being mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offences. This issue has been extensively researched by Kieran Riley with an article in the Boston University Law Journal titled “Trial by Legislature: Why Statutory Mandatory Minimum Sentences Violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine”, Paul Cassell and Erik Luna with a peer-reviewed scholarly article titled “Sense and Sensibility in Mandatory Minimum Sentencing”, and the Families Against Mandatory Minimums organization with a policy report. All of these sources came to the same conclusion, that the many negative aspects of mandatory minimums far outweigh the few positive aspects. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenses that unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.
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
Policemen not only have to follow a set of rules and legislation, but they also must behave in a decent manner while on duty as well as off duty. Unfortunately, nobody is perfect, and police officers also make wrong decisions that could jeopardize the integrity of their police department. Often people do something that they know is wrong. However, they still do it because they feel no harm will come to them or they think nobody would ever find out. For instance, cheating on a test is wrong, but people do it because they think they can get away without the professor finding out.
Having had the opportunity to see both sides of the argument play out in the City of Memphis and as a member of the Memphis Police Department. I have become an advocate for requiring entry-level police officers to have at the very minimum an associate degree or the equivalent college credits. The college requirement can only be avoided with military experience. However, my position is not that more education makes you a better police officer or less education makes you a lousy officer. I believe that there should be a “happy medium” when it comes to police work. A good officer will be empathic, fair and in tune with the needs of the community and its members. Requiring a level of education for your entry-level officers speaks volumes about your agency and their dedication to professionalism. The benefits of having a college educated officer have shown to make a difference in the way they do their jobs. An educated police officer is less likely to utilize force when interacting with his co-workers or civilians. A department with educated officers also has shown to see a reduction in misconduct and disciplinary issues(Gómez-Mejía et al., 2016). Some years back the Memphis Police Department had relaxed their
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws entail binding prison terms to a certain length for people who have been convicted of state or federal crimes. These intransigent, “universally adaptable” sentencing laws may seem like an easy and quick solution for crime. However, these laws prevent judges from suiting the punishment to the criminal according to their offenses. Mandatory minimum sentencing causes not only state but federal prisons to overcrowd, extortionate tax costs, and deflect from law enforcement funds.
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,
While the United States’ justice system has been a model for many countries around the world, the injustice of certain aspects in our court’s system is prominent. Mandatory minimums are just one example the of injustice in our justice system. The Supreme Court has “…casted doubt on the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines used for nearly two decades” (Kenneth Jost, 2004), despite this, nothing has been done to correct it. And while the idea of mandatory minimums is a good thing, they don’t work in the American justice system or in current American society.
Mandatory sentencing has been a big driver in the large population of incarcerated individuals in the United States. District attorneys are more aggressive in how they file charges against the arrestee. While the country has seen a decline in crime, new
The federal prison population has increased dramatically over the past two decades with drug offenders carrying mandatory minimum sentences, playing a significant role attributing to its increase population (Saris, 2013). The twin attack on drug offenses due to the creation of Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 led to the largest and fastest growing category in prison populations. Many of the drug offenders incarcerated were nonviolent offenders with 21 percent admitted in 1991 were reported to not having a single incidence of criminal violence in their background (Murphy, 1997; Webster, 2015). With the lack of discretion judges had in sentencing non-violent drug offenders based off a restricted guideline grid, many across the states began devising an alternative. In 1989, States Attorney of Dade County in Florida, Janet Reno and Judge Stanley Goldstein established the first ever drug court in Dade County in an effort to address the revolving door of reoffending (Murphy, 1997;
Policymakers developed the mandatory minimum sentencing statutes during an era when society was fed up with violent crime being at an all time high and the devastating emergence of crack cocaine. These policies represented the then dominant belief that longer, more severe sentences would “maximize the deterrent, retributive, and incapacitative goals of incarceration” (Subramanian, Ram and Delaney R, 2014). Members of Congress believed that stiff penalties would discourage people from committing illegal drug activity. Many of these penalties are mandatory – that is, judges may not impose a penalty less than the number of years chosen by Congress.
The United States of America is a country home to a population of nearly 320 million people, far from the staggering 1.4 billion in China, or 1.3 billion in India. However, our country is leading in incarceration rates with a total of over 2.2 million incarcerated citizens, even over those countries with populations several times larger than ours. Many would be shocked that our “great” country is the home to so many “criminals”, but in actuality, many imprisoned citizens are victims of our judicial system. Overincarceration in the US is an issue that has plagued our society since the “War on Drugs” beginning in 1971. With beaming support from the country and government, president Richard Nixon introduced the policy that would place standard sentencing guidelines for many drug and cartel related crimes. These policies came to be known as “mandatory minimums”.
There are several different ways a judge can hand down a punish for a crime that a person commits. A first-time drug offender would be required to either enter a rehab program or serve a prison term. One of the most disproportionate way is to sentence a first-time offender is by immediately handing down a lengthy but mandatory 10-year prison term for just having a few ounces of any type of drug. Mandatory minimum sentencing is defined as that if an offender is convicted of the crime that they must be imprisoned for a minimum duration, as against to leaving the length of punishment up to the judges, (www.uslegal.com, 1). Susan Grigsby is a writer for the DailyKOS web-blog in her article titled, “Why Dropping Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences Will Not Solve All of Our Prison Problems”, getting rid of the mandatory will not solve over-crowding. Daniel Horowitz is a writer for the Conservative Review media group who interviewed Jeffery Sedgwick in his article titled, “Busted: The 10 Most Dangerous Myths about Criminal Justice Reform”, this source is debunking myths about the cost. Michelle Ye Hee Lee is a writer for The Washington Post News Paper wrote a piece titled, “Yes, U.S. Locks People Up at a Higher Rate than Any Other Country”, she covers the high incarceration rate in the US even though crime is low. Michael Gonchar is a writer for the New York Times he wrote an article titled “What Should Be the Purpose of Prison?”, He covers what prisons
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
Stress is a term used by many, is somewhat misunderstood, and often used to describe a negative condition or emotional state. People experience various forms of stress at home, work, in social settings, and when engaged in activities to simply have fun, such as playing sports. Police officers experience stress the same as others, but also in ways much different than the average citizen. The dangers, violence, and tragedy seen by officers result in added levels of stress not experienced by the general population.
Police officers are responsible for protecting people and property. Related job titles include Sheriffs and sheriffs deputy, detectives, and state police officers. However all of these job titles have similar duties for example they are all responsible for the protection of people and property. These job titles might be very similar but they do differ in many ways. Police officers patrol the city issuing citations keeping the peace and conduct traffic stops. Sheriff 's and deputies hold practically the same duties as police officers but do so for the entire county. A state police officer could also be addressed as a state trooper. These officers usually patrol highways and issue citations and are frequently called for comprehensive law enforcement services. Detective is the title that differs from the others the most. Detectives aren 't in uniform. They investigate crime scenes and find evidence for criminal cases. Detectives conduct interviews, observe activities of suspects, and also participate in raids. Although a normal police officer does not earn as much income as related titles it is still a very demanding and dangerous job.