Pros And Cons Of Minimum Sentencing

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

A majority of laws containing mandatory minimums like the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and Major Frauds Act were passed in the 1980s, along with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 that established the United States Sentencing Commission. The USSC’s main job is to create sentencing policies and guidelines for the federal courts. A 2011 report to Congress regarding mandatory minimum penalties states “In fiscal year 2010, 27.2 percent of all cases (19,896 of 73,239 cases) involved a conviction of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.” (Sarris 120). This is stripping away

Common crimes in the judicial system include drug offenses, firearm offenses, and sexual assault, and the depending on the judge the repercussions could vary. To have unvaried penalties, mandatory minimum sentencing laws were enacted. These laws help keep citizens protected, while criminals are incarcerated. John Oliver, the host of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, talks about how mandatory minimum sentencing increases the number of criminals incarcerated, and he believes the length of their prison time is longer than it should be. He shows videos of criminals who were convicted under the mandatory minimum law with drug crimes. These videos explain how this law affected each of these individuals and their families, and some were sentenced to life in prison for their crimes. Oliver states, “Mandatory minimum sentencing laws designed to stop [drug crimes] have done way more harm than good (Oliver).” Although Oliver believes mandatory minimums are damagining, it was an illegal action that put those criminals in jail. Without breaking the law, they would have a free life. Removing mandatory minimum sentencing on drug offenses from the judicial system is unethical. It is necessary in the judicial system, because the safety of citizens is in the hands of judges. With drug crimes that are reoccurring in the court system, mandatory minimums enable judges to give sentences to criminals without sympathy interfering with the penalty deserved. Along with this, it keeps criminals off

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

Ben Whishaw once said, "The criminal justice system, like any system designed by human beings, clearly has its flaws." For many years, the criminal justice system has been criticized for its many problems and errors; one in particular that caught my attention was the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. These laws basically set minimum sentences for certain crimes that judges cannot lower, even for extenuating circumstances. The most common of these laws deal with drug offenses and set mandatory minimum sentences for possession of a drug over a certain amount. Sentencing procedures can vary from jurisdiction to Jurisdiction. Most of these laws are ineffective and causes unnecessary jail overcrowding.

Mandatory minimum sentencing is the minimum time for certain crimes, usually drug related crimes. For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, there were no mandatory minimums with sentencing (Evan Bernick and Paul Larkin, 2014). In 1984, Congress chose to modify sentencing with the “Sentencing Reform Act”. This Act also included the “Armed Career Criminal Act”, which requires a minimum of 15 years for illegally carrying a gun (Charles Doyle, 2010), and the Act also increased punishment for the use, possession, transferring, and growing of marijuana. This Act also allowed Congress to limit courts power of leniency with crime (Evan Bernick and Paul Larkin, 2014). Mandatory minimums mainly affect drug related crimes. However, some gun and pornography crimes also have mandatory minimums (FAMM, 2014).

Minimum Mandatory Sentence 1. A detailed description of the issue, along with any development and changes to the focus of its aspects that have occurred over time Minimum Mandatory Sentence started in “1892 with only six offences” (Wikipedia, para. 13). Minimum Mandatory Sentence is a permanent minimum punishment for certain offences that the government has set in the justice system. In Canada there are four categories that the minimum mandatory sentences are split into. The first type of mandatory sentence is life sentence which is imposed upon convictions for “first degree murder, second degree murder and treason”

The court system is an organization in order to provide swift and accurate judgement to the public. When an individual commits a crime they are summoned to appear before a judge. The judge is the individual who will determine their fines, jail time and the overall outcome of a case. This paper will discuss mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing guidelines.

While throughout history, there have always been some types of mandatory minimums, for example, “English common law required the death penalty for all felonies” (Greenblatt, Nathan). Up until the 1980s however, United States judges had a wide scope of discretion with sentencing for convictions. Judges were almost entirely free to sentence the convicted criminal however they wished. In the later 1960s and early 1970s, many legal activists disagreed with how sentencing was being conducted and pushed for sentencing reform, thus beginning in the mid-1980s, Congress began passing legislation on sentencing, giving birth to the ideas of mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines (Bernick and Larkin). “Mandatory minimums require uniformed, automatic, binding prison terms of a particular length

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

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.

In 1984, President Ronald Regan signed into law the Sentencing Reform Act, that Congress enacted as part of the Comprehensive Crime Act. The Sentencing Reform act was created to help make the criminal justice system more accountable to the public with a system that contained structures or guides to aid in the use of judicial discretion. In addition, the Sentencing Reform Act created a bi-partisan group of people that were chosen for their expertise in the field of criminal justice, that were appointed by the President, were confirmed by the senate, and were directed to determine appropriate type(s) and lengths of sentences…they were to become the United States Sentencing Commission.

Because prosecutors and judges often get around them, mandatory minimums lack predictability and certainty. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in 1991 that 40 percent of the federal offenders whose crimes should have triggered mandatory‐minimum sentences were able to avoid these sentences. Prosecutors can avoid mandatory minimums by entering into certain kinds of plea bargains. Federal law (Grime & Rogers,2002) for example, allows prosecutors to ask for sentences below the mandatory minimum for defendants who cooperate by providing evidence against other criminals. The enactment of mandatory‐sentencing laws also has resulted in the government's having to spend millions of additional dollars to keep more offenders locked up longer.

century, the number of crimes that were punishable by hanging went up to about 200. Some, such as treason or murder, which were serious crimes, but others were what would be called minor offences. For example, the death sentence would’ve been passed for picking pockets or stealing food. These were the kind of crimes most likely to be committed by people in need, which was mostly families that lived in poverty. Towards the end of the 1700's, the number of people hanged for petty crimes was causing the public to get aggravated.

“The year was 1927; James Aldermon was hanged for murder. This was the first case of a prison execution by hanging. Hanging would be the method of execution until the 1980s,” my professor stated after clearing his throat.