POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS It has been established that the current policy does not work as it was intended to, so thus it must be changed. William Rehnquist, a former Supreme Court Justice, stated his opinion of minimum sentencing during an often cited speech. As stated in his book Prison blues: How America 's Foolish Sentencing Policies Endanger Public Safety, David Kopek credits Rehnquist with stating:
These mandatory minimum sentences are perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences. There is a respectable body of opinion which believes that these mandatory minimums impose unduly harsh punishment for first-time offenders -- particularly for 'mules ' who played only a minor role in a drug distribution scheme. Be that as
…show more content…
(Kopel, 1994)
Rehnquist, a judge himself at this point, believes that mandatory sentencing is the result of knee jerk reactions from legislators. Not only that, but the sentences are unusually harsh on first time offenders, a group which is usually offered some form of leniency in light of the fact that they are not habitual offenders. Rehnquist argues that a better policy would be to return to former guidelines. This is the stance this policy seeks to take. That having such inflexible rules on sentencing does not account for the all the variables that are involved in a the legal process, such as the age of offender, past criminal history, mitigating circumstances and other factors that experienced judges would know to take into account when handing down sentences. Again, on the Rehnquist did mention politicians and efforts to be “tough on crime.” One such man was Ronald Reagan who criticized those who would lessen punishment for criminal offenders, no matter what the crime. In his 1985 State of the Union Address to Congress Reagan stated:
One does not have to be attacked to be a victim. The woman who must run to her car after shopping at night is a victim, as is the tired cleaning woman who can 't ride a subway home without being afraid. We do not seek to violate the rights of defendants. But shouldn 't we feel more compassion for the victims of crime than for those who commit crime? For the first time in 20 years, the crime index has fallen 2 years in a
In his chapter on “Assessing the Prison Experiment,” he explained that the increase of crime rate is not the sole reason that mass incarceration occurs, and it was also because the courts and the legislature did indeed became “tougher” on offenders (Currie 14). Currie discussed the circumstances of the war on drugs, which was launched by President Richard Nixon. He indicates that the incarceration rate and sentence longevity were increased dramatically since the beginning of the war on drugs. Some of these offenders were given a sentence for more than ten years without the possibility of parole, which is taking away any chance of the prisoner being released before the completion of his or her sentence. Locking people up is a failed attempt to descend the crime rate, and the adoption of mandatory minimum sentencing law is the root of mass incarceration. The government should reconsider the current sentencing laws and reform the correctional system in order to solve the current mass incarceration problem. Furthermore, establishing more community-based programs for youth offenders and initiating early release programs are excellent alternatives to resolve the issue of mass incarceration from both long-term and short-term perspectives, respectively.
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
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).
The concept of mandatory minimum sentencing fundamentally does not work because it clogs the prisons with people that will not be reformed by the prison system and the individuals being put in prison are not the individuals that really need to be put in prison, like drug kingpins. There are also many cases of unjust sentencing caused by mandatory minimum sentencing.It also limits plea bargains that the
The implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing has allowed for the substitution of prosecutorial discretion in the place of judicial discretion. The purpose of mandatory minimums was to eliminate or reduce sentencing disparities. However, they have simply shifted discretion allowing for prosecutors to have unreviewable discretion over whether to even charge a violation of law with the mandatory minimum sentencing. Unreviewed discretion caused by mandatory minimums may be allowing innocent people to slip through the cracks. James B. Halsted of the University of Florida conducted a study that examined anti-drug statutes (in the 1980s) by analyzing how the criminal justice system could possibly be incarcerating marginally culpable or innocent defendants due to ease of convictability of those prosecuted under mandatory minimum statutes (Halsted). Halsted makes a claim that “it appears that the whole purpose of mandatory minimum sentences structures is to ensure that trial judges have practically no discretion when determining the amount of punishment they will impose when sentencing a defendant convicted of a crime like trafficking” (Halsted). Placing discretion in the hands of prosecutors is clearly more disagreeable than allowing judicial discretion. Prosecutors do not have proper training in exercising discretion and do not have incentive to exercise discretion responsibly.
The criminal justice system in the United States is not a single system, but rather a combined network of systems, reconfigured as one. This means that communication and transparency is even more important than it might be within a more one dimensional system. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require binding prison terms for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes. These inflexible, “one-size-fits-all” sentencing laws may seem like a quick-fix solution for crime, but they undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offenses. One question being considered within the legal community now is, while new crimes are being recognized as they are committed, should mandatory minimums really be “mandatory”, or should they be “suggested”, and serve more as a guideline, while the actual sentence is left to the discretion of the court? Not all crime is created equal and motive, or lack thereof, are factors that should play a role in the court’s determination of an appropriate sentence, should one in fact be imposed
In addition to the economical problems mandatory minimums contribute to, some adversaries suggest that mandatory minimums may not even be effective, particularly in regards to reducing drug related crimes. In many organized drug operations when one drug supplier is caught and incarcerated another swiftly takes his place (Caulkins, Jonathan P). Furthermore, social scientists and public policy analysts researching the effectiveness of mandatory minimums have found there to be little conclusive evidence that mandatory minimums do in fact reduce crime (The United States Sentencing Commission).
One of the main reasons the government should force judges to impose mandatory minimum sentences is that they help discourage people from committing major drug offenses. The United States, for example, experienced a drop in crime when many of the mandatory sentencing laws were put into place in the 1980s. [ Text ]. The only thing that is more important in the drug war than stopping existing drug - related
In conjunction with a large expansion of federal criminal law came an increase and expansion of the penalties for its violation (Feeley & and Kamin, 1996). Partially in response to those “commerce crimes” perpetrated with a violent element, Congress enacted legislation for heightened penalties and laws geared toward career criminals, including the authorization of capital punishment for over 60 federal crimes (Feeley & and Kamin, 1996) (Maroney, 2000). In 1984 the Sentencing Reform Act created a matrix of sentencing guidelines (often seen as mandatory guidelines in practice) that were intended to limit primarily racially-based sentencing disparities when left to the discretion of judges (Gertner, 2010) (Albonetti, 1997).
mandatory minimum sentences work in the United States. They did this through three key steps:
Historically, the Criminal Code provided judges with broad discretion in sentencing matters, however, mandatory minimum sentences is very much the exception to the rule. Kent Roach has characterized the post-Smith Supreme Court decisions upholding mandatory minimum sentences as moving from “activism” to “minimalism” in interpreting and applying section 12. He recognizes that judges are more engaged in interpreting cases prior to the establishment of a minimum floor of sentencing with respect to certain offences. In addition, Smith has been called the watermark for section 12-jurisprudence. However, in the twenty-five years following Smith, the Court’s section 12-analysis has been gradually restricted as a tool for challenging mandatory minimums. As Ryan Newel eloquently describes, “the potency of section 12 has been diluted considerably as the Court has limited the use of hypothetical circumstances in which the imposition of a
If real justice wants to be served, it can’t be with mandatory minimums when all of it’s drawbacks aren’t worth it. The high costs, it’s ineffectiveness in deterring drug crime, and it’s racial bias diminishes justice in jail instead of progress. This is why mandatory minimums must be
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.
settling on future sentencing choices and hold more nearly too past practice; they depicted past