Reasonable Sentencing

In the U.S. the “War on Drugs” has been at the forefront of debates and discussion since it was formally declared by President Nixon in 1971. This war continues to have many problematic consequences today, the most notable being mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offences. This issue has been extensively researched by Kieran Riley with an article in the Boston University Law Journal titled “Trial by Legislature: Why Statutory Mandatory Minimum Sentences Violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine”, Paul Cassell and Erik Luna with a peer-reviewed scholarly article titled “Sense and Sensibility in Mandatory Minimum Sentencing”, and the Families Against Mandatory Minimums organization with a policy report. All of these sources came to the same conclusion, that the many negative aspects of mandatory minimums far outweigh the few positive aspects. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenses that unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.

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 This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.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

Since the 1980s drug offenses have increased from nineteen thousand to two hundred sixty five thousand in 2008. For many years now, our jails have been struggling with overcrowding. In 2010, our President Barack Obama, signed the Fair Sentencing Act. The Fair Sentencing Act helps reduce disproportion between the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine. The act helps in determining whether a person who is caught with five grams of crack/ powder cocaine, should receive the same sentencing as someone who has one hundred times more than that. According to the National Governor’s Association, forty-six states were faced with a budget deficit. With the implementation of the Fair sentencing Act in place, we can begin to see the reduction in jail overcrowding.

The mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes should be abolished. Treatment and rehabilitation efforts

In her article “The meteoric, costly and unprecedented rise of incarceration in America”, Badger reports that between 1980 and 2010, the incarceration rate for drug crimes increased ten folds. This was consequence of the “war on drugs”, a corollary to Lyndon Johnson’s “war on crime” and laws enacted by Congress where “mandatory minimum” sentences and “Three strikes laws” took effect.

Mandatory penalties have not always been a central feature of the U.S. criminal justice system (Subramanian, Ram and Delaney R, 2014). Until the 1980s, sentencing in the United

The drug court also provides powerful incentives and punishments for it participates. Some may be harsh and others are less harsh. At the state level the recidivism rate has lowered (Fulkerson et al., 2012; Rempel et. Al., 2003; Shaffer, 2011; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2003). This is due to the defendant’s participation rate. There was a national study done showing a two-year recidivism rate of 28% (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003).

In delving further into the debate between the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of mandatory sentencing, it is relevant to scrutinize the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. There is concern “that the Guidelines did not allow sufficient judicial discretion.” Congress in turn argued that the Guidelines were created to alleviate the disproportionate sentences created by judicial discretion.

The lawyers of Thompson Law Office in Lexington, KY handle a number of criminal and civil cases in the community. Their team of defense attorneys is experienced in providing assistance in DUI cases, drug possession and trafficking, wrongful death cases, and even divorces. This brother/sister law firm understands how family is affected by criminal and civil law and ensures success in the courtroom with appropriate representation.

Punishments for an individual’s criminal actions, such as the possession of illicit drugs, have been in place for centuries. However, many people wonder why certain punishments are more severe than others and how a judge makes the final decision of what a sentence may be. In Federal Courts, a sentencing guideline is determined by the individual’s criminal history, severity of the crime, and mitigating factors.1

Experts agree: alternative sentencing programs are much more effective than terms of incarceration at reducing recidivism and are significantly less expensive to run (Coy, 2015; James, 2011). Offenders may request an alternative sentencing program but it is ultimately in the judge’s hands whether they receive it. Several options are available to judges, such as home electronic monitoring (house arrest), work release, diversion programs (Youth Challenge, Suspended Imposition of Sentence, etc.), and Drug Court (Coy, 2015; Fiske, 2015). However, a study of alternative sentencing programs has shown that mostly first-time, nonviolent

The criminal justice system has four goals they strive for. These goals are discourage, punishment, damage, and rehabilitation. Of these four, discourage, punishment, and damage mean the same thing. When a crime is committed, punishment and rehabilitation is needed to correct a problem (Punishment vs. Rehabilitation: A Proposal for Revising Sentencing Practices, 1991). When the delinquent has departed from prison and enters the real life, they tend to get other issues other than the usual drug and alcohol use if they haven’t already been addicted.

Most stages of the criminal justice system revolve around the sentencing process, in that the primary focus is determining the guilt or innocence of the accused (Neubauer & Pradella, 2011). As a result, numerous laws, policies, and practices have been implemented throughout the system as a means to make sentencing procedures less complex. However, most of these sentencing laws have produced an adverse effect, and generated barriers during this stage of the justice process. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to provide further insight on challenges within the sentencing process in regard to sentencing laws. More specifically, three strikes laws are discussed in-detail as a means to present the positive and negative impacts they have

As there are as many reasons and circumstances for the commission of crimes as there are those who commit them, there is therefore no one philosophy which best suits to serve as the ideal model when sentencing. The justification for a first time offender of a misdemeanor offense, with no prior history and attempting to lead an otherwise normal life should not be the same for the 3 time convicted felon or habitual offender (frequent flier) who’s intent in life is to survive by any means necessary to satisfy his needs and desires.

People understand the difference between right and wrong and that there are going to be consequences for their actions. People also understand that a crime is doing something that is wrong or illegal that there are punishments that fit the crime. However, there are also times when the punishment does not fit the crime or is excessive. People that commit these crimes do so in hoping that they won’t get caught but when they do they know that they are going to have a punishment that fits the crime. This paper is going to look at the difference between misdemeanors and felonies and the punishment that go with the crimes, and the sentencing guidelines in which the courts are supposed to follow, and process in which a criminal can request a sentence reduction, or appeal their current sentence.