Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Mandatory minimum laws, which set different minimum sentences for crack and powder cocaine possession, are policies that are inflexible, “one-size-fits-all” sentencing laws that undermine the constitutional principle that the punishment should fit the crime and undermine the judicial power to punish an individual in context of the specific circumstances. Similarly, 3-strikes laws also ignores judicial discretion. Truth-in-sentencing policies refer to policies created to have a convict serve the full sentence, regardless of good behavior or other deterrent. These policies are created to only incapacitate people—more specifically minorities—not to rehabilitate them. More people in jail and longer sentences are not helping ensure public safety.

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unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.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 This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.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

The Anti- Drug abuse act allowed a decree on longer sentencing when it came to criminal drug charges causing unbalance in the penal system when it came to the sentence granted depending on race. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act was brought to congress a few years after the introduction of the Sentencing Reform Act. The Sentencing Reform Act was to bring equal stability when it came to sentencing criminals regardless of origins. The introduction of the Anti-abuse act was brought forth by the tough on crime era, in which it center was preventing crime by upping criminal sentencing. Conservative President Ronald Reagan brought forth this notion with congress in the midst of continuing being tough on crime. It was seen as controversial because it went

Secondly, they should be addressed the needs of offenders and the deficits in their lives that contributed to their offending. And thirdly, sentences should not be severe, intrusive, or damaging to an offender’s later decarceration to live a righteous life than is minimally necessary to achieve valid purposes of the sentence he or she receives (Tonry 508). An addition to these are proportionality, which means that sentences should correspond in severity to the seriousness of the crimes which they are inflicted. Also, regularity, which signifies that sentences should be guided by official standards to make the process clear, procedures fair, and allow judges to be more accountable (Tonry 508). Moreover, the American Criminal Code must be taken into consideration. Two features must be altered if the sentencing is to become fair, effective, and just. Firstly, the harsh sentencing laws must be revoked, and secondly the limits, that matches the offense seriousness, must be put on the lawful sentences (Tonry 514). Moreover, Tonry mentioned about future changes that, “If adopted, they would greatly reduce the number of people in prison in future years, but their adoption would not significantly reduce the scale of American imprisonment in 2015 or in 2020. Doing that will require enactment of new laws authorizing reconsideration of sentences now being served (Tonry 523).

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.

The mandatory minimum sentencing laws were passed as an effort to combat the war on drugs, with the anticipation that it would lock away high-level drug lords and discourage others from dealing drugs. However, the law requires judges to issue unwarranted, lengthy sentences without regard to the facts of the case. As a result, the law has overpopulated our prisons with nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, while the high-level drug lords are still free. This is because of the practice that one’s sentence can be reduced if they testify against others, and the high-level drug offenders have more to offer than those on the lower level. The Smarter Sentencing

Unnecessary rules and regulations is what have become of the required minimum sentencing laws. Laws that are put intact so that Congress might have control over what happens with a convict in the judiciary court system. It is essential that these laws are dealt away with; they are creating greater harms than benefits for the public. They are costing the American people from their money, abstinence from their families, and to some extent even rights as U.S. citizens. The United States Congress should repeal mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported 6.7 million people were supervised by adult correctional systems in the United States at year end 2015. President Obama has conveyed tax payer pay $80 billion dollars to house incarcerate individuals yearly. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 limited federal judge sentencing discretions. In 1980 the USA had 500k people incarcerated, the population of prisoners has more than doubled the last two decades. The United States Mandatory sentencing requires offenders receive a predetermined minimum sentencing for some offenses. Since the implementation of mandatory sentencing, prison populations have risen sharply with sky rocking costs. On certain offenses, Federal judges no longer have discretion on the sentence length. Mandatory sentencing laws have shifted the power of punishment to the prosecutor as they have the discretion of charges brought against offenders. According to Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy in their article “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017,” the United State criminal justice leads the world in the percentage of its citizens incarcerated. Mandatory minimum sentencing has led to large prison populations, skyrocketing costs and social family challenges.

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.

Mandatory minimum sentences are court decisions where judicial discretion is limited by law. Usually when people are convicted of certain crimes they must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. The article I picked to review is an article on mandatory minimum sentences. The article reviews the pros and cons of mandatory sentencing. I will go over the pros and cons described in the article and give my opinion on how I feel about them.

The whole point of having the judicial system is to have equality for all in order to harbor an environment of harmony and faith by the public we are serving. I do not believe that having mandatory sentencing will reduce crime on its own. However, I do believe that everyone should know what they can expect for punishment when they are guilty of a crime. Let’s assume committing a crime in one state typically has a sentence of 1 year in prison. What if it were 5 years in another state for the same crime? This may in fact only increase that crime occurrence in the state where the punishment would be less. This would cause a concentration of certain crimes in areas which would become uninhabitable and impossible to control. I also believe to be effective, we would need to allow judges the ability to use their discretion in cases where they may need to deviate from the minimum requirements depending on mitigating circumstances. This will help keep the guidelines from being too intricate and confusing for everyone to understand. In keeping with the spirit of checks and balances, if this is abused then the judge could be facing discipline. Keeping this in mind, we should have mandatory minimum sentencing as a deterrent while allowing judges the ability to make changes if they feel they are absolutely needed. This will allow the judicial system to be effective and keep moving

When handing down a mandatory minimum sentencing a judge must impose a fixed minimal term in prison for individuals convicted of certain crimes, no matter what their role in the crime or other circumstances. A minimum prison sentence of five years is given to anyone that is convicted of selling 500 grams of powdered cocaine under federal law Guidelines for sentences are based on the type of crime, the weight of the drug, and the number of prior convictions, and defenders are required to serve the entire sentence (85 percent in some state) without parole. A judge can only issue a sentence shorter than mandatory minimum only if the defendant provided corporation in the prosecution of another offender (Levinthal, 2012, pg. 132).

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.

Several of the efforts listed above denote that organizations are using legislatures, both at the state and federal level, to appease their problem. This would most likely be the fastest route to get any results on the matter, however, it is not the only route of which these organizations could have taken. The policy problem could have been taken to the courts, however, as observed this could be a tedious affair of which lots of money would be spent for the hope that a case trial would be picked up. There is no guarantee that a policy will make it to court though. These kind of debacles could take years and that is not exactly want is wanted in needed in any case and especially ones concerning mandatory minimums where an ongoing influx of unjust