No matter how many laws are put in place, there will always be crime that occurs in the world we live in today. People should be punished for the crime they commit but sometimes the punishment is very unpractical. Normally in average cases, you have a judge and a jury who go over your case and find whether or not you are guilty of the crime. With mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws now the power is in the prosecutor's hands and if they want you to be charged with the sentence without a question, the judge has no choice but to place you in jail. These laws shift power from the judges and juries to the prosecutors, almost always going in their favor. Certain crimes now have the same punishment no matter who commits them and their circumstances are not put into account. These laws are unfair because people are being sentenced to much time in prison for crimes that should carry less of a sentence. According to a statement by the US Bureau of Justice statistics in June 2000, “the average sentence for murder was 12.4 years, most only served 7.9 years.” This is my problem with the prison and court system, you get charged with more time for committing a crime that is nowhere near as inhumane as murder. It is bad for someone to sell and supply drugs but, you shouldn’t spend a majority of your life behind bars. One problem in mandatory sentencing laws is, they do not reduce crime as well as they are supposed to. One may argue that mandatory minimums actually do
There are many mandatory minimum sentences that have been placed in the Canadian law to help prevent crime from happening and to
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.
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
In the 1990s, states began to execute mandatory sentencing laws for repeat offenders. This statute became known as “three strike laws”. The three strikes law increases prison sentence for people convicted of a felony. If you have two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, it limits the ability that offenders have to receive a punishment other than life sentencing. By 2003 over half of the states and federal government had enacted the “three strike laws”. The expectation behind it was to get career criminals off the street for the good of the public. However, the laws have their connoisseurs who charge sentences that are often excessive to the crimes committed and that incarcerate of three strike inmates for 25 years to life. Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court has upheld three strike laws and had rejected the fact that they amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
I will obtain different peer reviewed sources to examine and interpret both facts and opinions provided by the authors. I will also use some web articles and books to gather more information on mandatory minimum sentencing and its effects on society. With this in mind, I will
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
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).
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against
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.
The United States is home to five percent of the world population, but 25 percent of the world’s prisoner. There must be a change to the current prison system which is doing more harm than good in American society and must be reformed. Reasons for this claim are that American prisons are too overcrowded with inmates, which creates a dangerous and unhuman environment. The cost to run a prison has gotten too expensive for tax payer pockets, and lastly the prison system is more as a punishment instead of rehabilitation with about sixteen percent of inmates most serious offence being drug charges. Prisons fall short of reforming criminals and the government is obligated to completely reform the prison systems in the United States.
Mandatory sentencing refers to those sentences which a judicial officer is required to impose no matter what the circumstances of the offence. In other words, the judicial officer has no discretion to impose a higher or lower sentence depending upon the nature of the crime. In the case of one punch laws, the mandatory sentence is a minimum so a judicial officer is able to impose a higher sentence if he or she thinks it’s appropriate. For example, a person who king hits someone will automatically get an eight-year mandatory minimum sentence. If someone else does the same thing one month later in a different place and is heard by a different judge he will get that same mandatory minimum sentence of eight years in prison and possibly longer if the judge thinks it’s suitable.
The main idea of the first media source on ABC news was to educate and give listeners an understanding on the reasons why one punch laws and mandatory sentencing is needed in today’s society, the second source of media came from The Sydney Morning Herald, it was an opinionated article where the authors contention was that harsher laws need to be put into place for such vile attacks that almost always cause serious injury, otherwise death. ABC news provided evidence from commentary with an expert, Gerard Hays, secretary in the New South Wales branch of Health Services Union. Hays spoke about how these laws are a necessity in an attempt to prevent people from getting themselves into damaging, dangerous situations and to make them think twice
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.
There is a lot of controversy going around about mandatory life prison for juveniles who commit murder in the Supreme Court of Justice. Most of the officials would like to abolish it being mandatory a posed the small group that wishes to retain it. This is a controversy that talks about a teen murdering someone and no matter what the reasoning or metal stability, the teen should be locked up for the rest of their life, forget all inputs, if the kid killed, they are locked up for eternity. I am given to understand that most people (due to human nature) change over time given and because of age and other aspects such as tragedies of death or loss. It has been scientifically proven that human brain activity changes drastically during the adolescent ages, (between 12-18) this is inhuman to lock someone up for the rest of their life. I do agree with the Supreme Court justices to abolish mandatory life prison for juveniles who commit murder. Its really intense to be a mandatory punishment.