Mandatory Sentencing Essay

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 This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.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

What has society done about reforming sentencing laws in order to reduce the incarceration population? The fair sentencing Act which was signed by president Obama has helped reduce the number of inmates impacted by mandatory minimum sentencing by “reducing the disparity in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine required for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences and eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, it also increases penalties for major drug traffickers” (White House 2010). What the Act did was changed the ratio of Crack cocaine v Cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1 (U. S. Department of Justice 2010). This Act is beneficial because it

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws entail binding prison terms to a certain length for people who have been convicted of state or federal crimes. These intransigent, “universally adaptable” sentencing laws may seem like an easy and quick solution for crime. However, these laws prevent judges from suiting the punishment to the criminal according to their offenses. Mandatory minimum sentencing causes not only state but federal prisons to overcrowd, extortionate tax costs, and deflect from law enforcement funds.

In the law a sentence is forms the final explicit act of judge rule process the sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime. We all have known this for years that this is that is how prison sentencing is done. Even though people should go away for the same crime, in reality prison sentencing is not fair because of people of different backgrounds, genders. and ethnicities face different sentences for the same crime. When it comes to society has high expectations for the criminal justice system. People expect a murderer, for example, to have the same sentence as another person. When a celebrity such as Bill Cosby gets put away for a rape he may go away for a shorter time than average Joe. The minimum sentencing for certain crimes, in this case, are longer than they should be. Why should people be sentenced to unlawful sentences and end up in jail until they are elderly and not a danger society?Unfair sentencing is a form of the unequal treatment often unexplained cause of why. We see a person go away for x amount of years and then someone else comes along and performs the same crime and gets less or longer than the other person.

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).

People in The United States have been affected by the prison system, it has saved many lives, but on the other hand, people have prosecuted for minor crimes, to end up spending a lot of time in jail, which breaks apart families for far too long, it also creates a big rift between the people of this fine nation and their distrust of the law. Back in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan has issued a law that has cut funding for the mental institutions in the United states as called the deinstitutionalization of mental health, and to show ways of how we can bring our mental health system into place. Also in the same era laws have been put in place to put harsher laws on drug offenders called mandatory minimum sentencing, some people like non-violent, first-time drug offender are being treated the same way as a drug lord, and a way that we can fix that is push laws in congress to loosen minimum sentencing. Not to forget to mention the death penalty, how tax payers are wasting our money on keep prisoners on death row. Having a poor mental health system, strict mandatory minimum sentencing, racial bias in our prisons, and death penalty laws has led people to enter our prison system wrongfully. By fixing those rules we can help our society grow, and achieve greatness by doing right to our prison system.

Similar to the Sentencing Reform Act, the purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission is to prevent inequity of sentencing among federal judges. It’s role is to serve as a strict guideline for Judges to adhere and limits the discretion at which a Judge may alter the length of sentence. The goal of this commission is to hamper factors such as race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc to affect the length of sentence, and aims for the guideline to stand on a neutral ground.

“Mandatory minimum sentencing means a person convicted of a crime must be imprisoned for a minimum term, as opposed to leaving the length of punishment up to judges”( US Legal, Inc.). Since, the 90’s American Judicial Systems Mandatory Sentencing have been around and it originally purpose was to get rid of the transferring and selling of drugs on the street. The U.S. disgned the mandatory minimum sentencing to send a clear message to everyone that

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 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

139). Mandatory Sentencing is where the legislation Is the one who provides a fixed sentence for the offenders who are found guilty of that crime and that the judge has no discretion in the sentencing what so ever. The types of crimes that are usually used in this type of sentencing are crimes that were committed with firearms or drugs. A pro of Mandatory Sentencing is that it guarantees the defendants will not receive a light sentence at the judge’s discretion (CJ 2010 Textbook Pg. 139). A Con of this type of Sentencing is that it provides no discretion for individual circumstances, offenders who may have benefited from diversion, counseling, or probation will be sentenced to imprisonment (CJ 2010 Textbook Pg. 139).