Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Minimums

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are fundamentally un-American. The Boston University Law Journal states that “mandatory minimum sentences provide plenary decision-making power to prosecutors of the executive branch, while heavily restricting the discretion of the judiciary”(Riley, 2011, p. 286). This significantly weakens the checks and balances of the criminal justice system. This means that mandatory minimums are in conflict with the

The mandatory minimum sentencing is about a fixed ruling of a crime that a judge is expected to deliver. Congress has enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws. It was to impose the mandatory sentencing an offender would receive for crimes that were committed. The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes committed on society, such as violent, drug-related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat offender then it should be left up the presiding judge to serve out justice. People who commit low level crimes should be punished but not to the extent of going to prison for a long period of time. Congress has enacted these guidelines so that the criminal justice system would not be burden with smaller crimes or be overwhelmed. Lengthy sentencing hearings seldom are necessary, the disputes about sentencing elements must be resolved with sensitivity concern and carefulness. A dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination then a judge will use his discretion to hand down equal and fair judgement. Legislator statements during debates on mandatory

1. Mandatory minimum sentencing is a protocol made to provide accurate sentencing for a crime. The purpose is to provide a standard where judges cannot reduce sentences, in order to encourage a fairer judicial system.

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

The death penalty is still in use in the united states. The state with the most executions is in Texas with a total of 545 from 2017 to the year 1976 (Number of Executions, 2017). The death penalty is a very big debate. There are many reasons why and why people do and don’t like the death penalty.

Current mandatory minimum sentencing laws are in dire need of reform. A mandatory minimum sentence is a court decision where judicial discretion is limited by law. As a result, there are irrevocable prison terms of a specific length for people convicted of particular federal and state crimes. As of January 2014, more than 50 percent of inmates in federal prisons are serving time for drug offenses, and more than 60 percent of people incarcerated are racial and ethnic minorities. The use of safety valves and implementation of the Fair Sentencing Act are a few methods Congress employed to combat racial disparity in prisons. Mandatory minimum sentencing harshly punishes non-violent offenders, disproportionately affects minorities, and skews the balance of power between judges and prosecutors.

Mandatory minimum sentences are set by Congress and Judges can't change the sentencing. They apply to drug offenses and require automatic minimum prison terms for certain crimes. For example, selling 28 grams of crack cocaine triggers a minimum sentence of five years in prison. Even though Robyn's judge believed that Robyn deserved lower sentencing, it was not under his discretion. Bush-Baskette (2000) commented on how mandatory minimum sentencing standards had a major impact on women and being the sole caretaker of minor children was no longer being considered for sentencing purposes. It is clear that Robyn had become sober therefore her sentencing should be less than 10 years. Her sentencing not only impacts her life, but also impacts her children. Prison is not an effective treatment to drug use and crimes, especially low-level

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

Summary: This bill would increase use of the “drug trafficking safety valve” which allows certain exceptions to mandatory minimum laws for defendants who meet certain criteria and would institute “release valves” for low-risk, old or dying offenders. It directs the use of mandatory minimums and sentence enhancements only in cases with “higher-level traffickers” and would reduce life sentences for some drug offenders with repeated offenses to 25 years. This bill also enhances the ability of defendants to earn time off their sentence through good behavior and requires the government to issue “fiscal impact statements for sentencing bills” and share sentencing costs in “pre-sentencing reports.” The bill would hand the power to prosecute simple possession charges back the states. The goal of the legislation is to curb over-criminalization, expand sentencing alternatives through the creation of drug and mental health courts and return of probation, save imprisonment for those with a career of violent offenses, reduce the likelihood of re-offending, and bring accountability and openness to the system. This bill would also allow for retroactive resentencing under the new

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.

Mandatory minimums were put in place with the purpose of providing objectiveness when, in actuality, the entire process is unfair. According to the Boston Globe, “you accept the deal — however unfair it may seem — or you take your chances in court, knowing that if you can’t prove your innocence, you’ll be given a stiff mandatory minimum”. Additionally, out of the 1,800 people who faced mandatory minimums in Massachusetts, 900 ended up pleading guilty in order to receive reduced charges.

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.

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.

Mandatory minimum sentences are useful in fighting the war on drugs, as they prevent prejudice in the courtroom. According to Keep Minimum Sentencing, to Discourage Criminals, one prosecutor witnessed a judge say, “I know you lied in your testimony, but I understand why you believed you had to do it.”[Text   ] Lots of judges put in their personal opinions when deciding the sentence for a criminal, and this ends up being unjust, as it means a great deal of criminals won’t have to face all the consequences to their actions. It is not uncommon that a judge feels sympathy towards a defendant and decides to give him/her a less hefty sentence. Incorporating mandatory minimum sentences into the justice system puts a stop to this. A criminal has to reap what he sows and cannot evade the ramifications of his actions because of a judge’s bias or

The effect of mandatory minimums has only proven to be detrimental over the past 33 years. This act was put in place in 1984 to stop the increase in drug offenses, yet has made no affect whatsoever. What’s left of this act can only destroy lives, mainly people of color by giving high and plainly unfair sentences to an already oppressed group. This is not the only common trend, mandatory minimums have skyrocketed in costs taken by taxpayers. All of these facts and more is why mandatory minimums should be abolished.