Should Mandatory Sentencing Be Mandatory?

The United States’ prison population is currently number one in the world. As a nation that proclaims freedom for citizens, the United States houses more than one million more persons than Russian and almost one million more persons than China. Currently, the United States makes up five percent of the world’s population and imprisons twenty-five percent of the world’s inmate population. Drug offenders who committed no act of violence make up a large portion of the inmates in the United States. County, State, and Federal prisons are so over populated that the private sector has opened up corporate facilities to house convicted persons. The cost each year to hold a person rises, placing larger financial demands on the judicial system. The Judicial System of the United States should reevaluate the sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug offenders to alleviate the high number of people in the prison system.

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

The main arrangement of rules was submitted to Congress on April 1987, and got to be law in November 1987. Somewhere around 1987 and 1989, more than 300 difficulties to the dependability of the rules and the Sentencing Commission blocked full across the country usage. Concurrent to the improvement and usage of the government sentencing rules, Congress instituted various statutes forcing required least sentences, generally for drug and weapons offenses, and for recidivist offender (McMillon, 1993). The Sentencing Commission drafted the new rules to suit these compulsory least procurements by tying down the rules to them. The United States Sentencing Commission, predictable with the command built by Congress, proclaims rules and revisions to the rules in an iterative manner. Alterations reflect changes in statutory maximums, new mandates from Congress to the Sentencing Commission, experimental research on the usage and impact of rules, the changing pattern of crime, developing case law, in need of a change in prosecution, and advancements in learning about viable crime control. In distinction, mandatory minimum sentencing required a large single-shot attempt at crime control proposed to deliver sensational results. They need, in any case, an implicit instrument for assessing their adequacy and simple conformity. Additionally, it increases the disparities in discipline among racial groups (McMillon,

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

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.

What constitutes as fairness in the criminal justice system? Is it having a man put behind bars for more than 20 years for transporting a small amount of drugs to support his family? While a man can murder someone in the second degree and be sentenced to a minimum of 10 years? Is it right to take a parent away from their children for upwards of 20 years? The United States government thinks this is fair and allows for less discrimination in the federal justice system, this law is called the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing law. It has been around since the late 18th century, but did not start affecting drug possession until mid 20th century. Mandatory Minimums were initially designed to have a “cookie cutter” way to sentence violent offenders, but now has a role in sentencing drug offenders as well.

Another concern mandatory minimums pose is the lack of individualized sentencing. As previously mentioned when discussing the positive aspects of mandatory minimums, some view consistency of sentencing as a favorable product of mandatory minimums, nevertheless, there are some significant problems associated with standardizing sentences. Many people support the idea that offenders of the same crime should receive the same sentence, however, this idea disregards the individuality and complexity of each criminal case; while the same crime may have been

When we talk about mandatory-minimum sentences, we first have to look at the time frame when this law came into effect. The country was in a period where violate crime was on an increase due to the drug trade. The demand for drugs in society was at an all time high rate.

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.

One of the main reasons the government should force judges to impose mandatory minimum sentences is that they help discourage people from committing major drug offenses. The United States, for example, experienced a drop in crime when many of the mandatory sentencing laws were put into place in the 1980s. [ Text    ]. The only thing that is more important in the drug war than stopping existing drug - related

Most mandatory minimum sentencing laws were written when America was in a full-fledged anti-drug hysteria. So to fight the perceived drug menace, Ronald Reagan passed tough mandatory minimum drug penalties, and his successor, President Bush, pushed for even harsher laws. And this wasn’t solely a republican issue either. Democrats in Congress and State Legislatures, and even Bill Clinton pushed for these laws, and by 1994, 31 states plus Washington DC had minimum mandatory sentencing laws for drug crimes. This didn’t lower the crime rate, it simply increased prison populations. Extremely long sentences are not a good deterrent for crime because the people committing crimes do not think they’re going to get caught, nor are they aware of the punishments they’re faced with.

Until the early 1970s, the sentencing of crime convicts was based on the principle of rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. Legislatures set maximum authorized sentences for various types of crimes and judges decided on the prison term or probation or fines. Correctional officials and parole boards had the powers to reduce the time served for good behavior and release prisoners early. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis shifted to deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crime, heavier sentences for habitual offenders and the “three-strike” rule for felony convictions. Public opinion supported these changes in the belief that prison terms were just retribution for crimes and incarceration kept criminals off the streets (Mackenzie, 2001).

The federal government implemented a new bill in 2011, which increased the minimum mandatory sentence for violent and drug crimes. However, increasing the sentence did not help to decrease the crime rate in Blueville. Minimum sentences are thought to be successful when there is a certainty of being caught, the severity of the punishment matches the severity of the crime and the punishment is applied as swiftly as possible. However, the severity of the punishment does not mean that individuals will stop committing crimes as this does not affect the certainty that they will be caught. This could be one of the reasons crime rates remained in Blueville as the number

Sentencing Commission, which specify that between 1998 and 2002 over 300 defendants were sentenced annually under the guideline that boosted penalties for drug activity. Tools are very limited when it comes to protecting certain locations and individuals from drug activities, there are also no specific weapons against those who sell drugs in or around drug treatment centers. To Avergun, the people that would sink that low as to target their trafficking activity at those with the least ability to resist such offers, those are the people who deserve the most severe punishment. The Department of Justice cannot and will not tolerate this conduct in America, and that is why they stands firmly behind the intent of this legislation to increase the punishment meted out to drug offenders. The Department of Justice supports mandatory minimum sentences in appropriate circumstances, of course. Mandatory minimum sentencing statues can provide a level of uniformity and predictability that regular sentencing procedures cannot. Mandatory minimum sentencing discourages certain types of criminal behavior by broadcasting the potential consequences of committing those offenses. They can also keep dangerous offenders in prison for long periods of time, thereby increasing the public’s safety. They also provide an important tool for prosecutors by providing defendants with a convincing incentive, that by cooperating with

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.