Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Sentencing

The first section is for the mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison for first and second-degree murder and treason. The second section deals with firearms offences. The third section of mandatory minimum sentences address repeat offenders in seven distinct categories, which involve impaired driving and possession of unauthorized weapons (Canada, 2013). The last category of MMS in Canada deals with hybrid offences. These were implemented in the Canadian legislation in 1995. If an offender commits a crime that has been determined to result in a mandatory minimum sentence within the Canadian Legislation, the judge must implement that sentence no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors are. Due to this sentencing legislation, many innocent people are serving time in prison due to a false conviction and the lack of judicial discretion in their individual case. Even though mandatory minimum sentences offer more costs then rewards, some politicians, community members and victims of crime still support it due to the proposed retributive and deterrent effects. There have been many cases and arguments against mandatory minimum sentences especially due to the fact that it restricts the judge’s discretion during the sentencing process. These will be discussed in more depth throughout this paper.

Michael Tarver is a 55 year old man who is serving a life sentence for murder in Atlanta, Georgia. Tarver is a diabetic with circulation problems, while in jail he got a cut on his leg. After receiving this cut he went months in confinement without proper care and because of his diabetes he was prone to infection and had to have his leg amputated. In 2012 Tarver filed a lawsuit written in longhand and filed without the consultation of an attorney. Dr. Chiquita Fye is the 65 year old woman who has been the medical director at this prison since 2006. This “lawsuit asserted that Fye was deliberately indifferent to his injury as he languished for months in the prison infirmary. Deliberate indifference to a prison inmate’s medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” (The Associated Press) Many inmates have filed lawsuits against this doctor all complaining that she neglected them of proper care. And there is so many other cases out there showing that prisons do not give proper care to inmates who need it.

Furthermore, throughout sentencing and punishment various legal and non-legal measures have been implemented to ensure that sentences for those convicted are appropriate and effective to enable rehabilitation and reintegration into society and provide the community with a sense of justice and security. The provision of statutory and judicial guidelines means that limits are placed on a judge’s discretion when sentencing, thus ensuring sentencing consistency. These guidelines were established in relation to the case R v. Jurisic (1998). The defendant Jurisic, pleaded guilty to three charges of dangerous driving occasioning in grievous bodily harm. He was found under the influence of cocaine on one of these charges. He was sentences to 18 months home detention, lost his driver’s licence for one year and was put on a good behaviour bond for two years. This was through to be lenient and was appealed by the DPP. The appeal was upheld and the sentence was replaced by two years imprisonment and two years disqualification of his driver’s

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

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

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

Common belief of the Australian public is, with a minimum mandatory sentence for specified crime, likely offenders are more likely to consider consequences before committing for the fear of being imprisoned. Short prison sentences are less likely to deter illegal activities such as selling drugs, vandalism and theft, so with a minimum enforced sentence according to the type of crime, there is less chance of future offenders. Those who support mandatory minimum sentencing express that without this type of fairness scheme, chances of unfair sentencing on guilty offenders will commonly happen. With an equal number of years of imprisonment, justice will be served to every offender with the same punishment without bias.

REFERENCESAustralian Law Reform Commission (1980), Sentencing of Federal Offenders, Discussion Paper No. 15Law Reform Commission NSW (2001), Discussion Paper 33(1996)-Sentencing, (Chapter 7. Parole), Lawlink New South Wales, Online. Available. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/DP33CHP7 3.4.2006No Author (2006), Sensible Sentencing NZ Justice: Why Parole?, Safe NZ, Online. Available. http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/paole.htm 3.4.2006Travis, L.F. (1995). Introduction to criminal justice (pp307

The crossing point of racial development with the criminal equity framework is one of the longstanding terms. Today, there are more diverse qualities of initiative in the court framework; however race still assumes to be a basic part in numerous criminal equity results. An essential part of the part of race in the criminal equity framework identifies with sentencing in light of the fact, that the possibility of a racially biased methodology damages the goals of equal treatment under the law under which the framework is preceded. By outlining, discretion is being taken away from prosecutors and judges due to the sentencing law in order to force cruel sentences, despite of the circumstances (Bjerck, 2005). Mandatory sentencing started in the

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.

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

These amendments happened in 2014 and meant that Kieran Loveridge just missed out on harder sentences for taking the life of Thomas Kelly, and there was utter outrage at the sentence that Kieran received which was six years for the manslaughter of Thomas Kelly and when added in with the assaults of the other victims of that night his sentence came to a total of 7 years and two months. With the harder sentences for those who take the life or injure with one punch will help deter people when they have full control over their thoughts and actions, but with most of the violence happening when the perpetrator is intoxicated they may not have the full mental capacity to realize the severity of the actions they are about to use or that with a single punch they could severely injure or even kill the victim. When intoxicated, people have an inhibited sense of right and wrong. Under the governments Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and intoxication) Act 2014, people with a blood-alcohol concentration level that register at the level of .15 will be presumed intoxicated. The blood-alcohol level .05 is the benchmark level used to measure low range drink driving offences, police will also be able to take a more flexible view on whether someone is intoxicated based on verbal and physical cues. One punch laws have been set in place in both the Northern territory and Western Australia after very similar cases to the one of Thomas Kelly with all three being widely publicized and followed intensely on all platforms of

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.

Rand Paul once stated, "The injustice of mandatory minimum sentences is impossible to ignore when you hear the stories of the victims" (Flatow, 2013). There has been a great amount of controversy concerning the mandatory sentencing laws throughout the years'. Mandatory minimum sentencing refers to a minimum term given to a person convicted of a crime, instead of allowing Judges to determine punishment. In the article pertaining to mandatory minimum sentences, it stated the reasoning for enforcement, " Congress also decided to eliminate the courts’ discretion to exercise leniency in some instances by requiring courts to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for certain types of crimes. (Bernick & Larkin, 2014). Instead of allowing the U.S. Sentencing