Should We Be Mandatory Sentence Reduction?

Less restrictive drug laws would lower the population of prisons. Courts deal with a high amount cases due to drugs. According to Goldberg (2012), the criminal justice system is becoming ineffective because of the high amounts of drug cases which, is overburdening the system. This means that there are too many cases that are being processed through the system, which creates an issue of overcrowding in prisons. The mandatory minimum laws create a burden for the system because all of the cases have to be processes creating an ineffective system. According to Nutt, King, and Nichols (2013), there are extreme legal consequences for drug possession. Less restrictive laws would help alleviate the burden on the system. By having less restrictive laws the amount of cases would drop greatly and then the system would be more effective than it is right now.

The United States has the world's highest incarceration rate. With five percent of the world's population, our country houses nearly twenty-five percent of the world's reported prisoners. Currently there are approximately two million people in American prisons or jails. Since 1984 the prison population for drug offenders has risen from ten percent to now over thirty percent of the total prison population. Federal prisons were estimated to hold 179,204 sentenced inmates in 2007; 95,446 for drug offenses. State prisons held a total of 1,296,700 inmates in 2005; 253,300 for drug offenses. Sixty percent of the drug offenders in prisons are nonviolent and were purely in prison because of drug offenses (Drug War Facts). The question then arises,

The drug war and racial profiling is a huge cause to mass incarceration. Vanita Gupta from the New York times wrote, “in 2003 I represented dozens of African-American residents in Tulia, Tex., who had been convicted after a botched drug sting. Jason Jerome Williams, a 22-year-old with no prior criminal record, had been sentenced to 45 years in prison for four sales of an eighth of an ounce of cocaine…, Others accepted plea deals to try to avoid such lengthy prison terms.” I do not think that drugs are okay to have, be sold, or to be under the influence of. But I do think that all of these sentences are way to long for these people. These are the sentences’ of those that commit way worse crimes like maybe killing someone or endangering some one else’s’ life.

This journal article discusses how the government has increased “mandatory sentencing” using “aggressive initiatives” for drug related crimes. Additionally, these government implemented sentencing guidelines have made the prison population grow

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

Longer sentences has been a major cause of mass incarceration. Thus, changing how governments respond to all crime, not just drug crime, is critical to reducing the size of prison

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.

In 1996, Federal Legislation was put in place that banned former prisoners with drug convictions from using food stamps and allowed public housing authorities to ban drug convicts from staying in public housing (Race and the War on Drugs). This negatively impacts the former drug offenders because it provides another setback on top of the plethora of challenges that they already face when leaving prison, like finding a job where the employer accepts former criminals. Having all of these difficulties in readjusting to “regular” society, restrictions set in place by the government now make it harder for these drug users or sellers to remain out of prison. The issue with punishing drug use is that it does not attempt to end the problem permanently and turns to quick fixes instead of long term solutions like rehabilitation and in- prison drug therapy. The lack of desire to help these prisoners is evident in the dropping of in-prison drug therapy since 1991 “despite the fact that almost one in five people in state prisons on drug charges cite the need to pay for their drug habit as the reason for their offense,” (Race and the War on Drugs). The War on Drugs attempts to punish drug

Current mandatory minimum sentencing laws are in dire need of reform. A mandatory minimum sentence is a court decision where judicial discretion is limited by law. As a result, there are irrevocable prison terms of a specific length for people convicted of particular federal and state crimes. As of January 2014, more than 50 percent of inmates in federal prisons are serving time for drug offenses, and more than 60 percent of people incarcerated are racial and ethnic minorities. The use of safety valves and implementation of the Fair Sentencing Act are a few methods Congress employed to combat racial disparity in prisons. Mandatory minimum sentencing harshly punishes non-violent offenders, disproportionately affects minorities, and skews the balance of power between judges and prosecutors.

Laws like three strikes, mandatory minimum sentencing, powder and crack cocaine disparities, and others, must be eradicated. The prisons are overfilled with non-violent, victimless offenders living environments that are overcrowded, in poor condition, and exploitive of prisoners’ lack of basic rights. This is neither conducive to the betterment of prisoners, nor the improvement of their life trajectories once they leave. Additionally, most drug laws produce racially disparate outcomes, furthering stereotypes and the inherent criminalization of men of color. In the long run, America must move toward alternative sentencing programs for low-level and non-violent offenders that issue penalties that are actually proportionate with real public safety

Prosecutors operate without accountability and fail to punish high-level dealers and this does not eliminate sentencing disparities. Furthermore, mandatory sentences are responsible for sending many women and people of color to prison. Also, it was thought that harsher, mandatory sentences would serve as a greater deterrent, making it less likely that offenders would re-offend.

This is true because of the drastic number of blacks getting arrested for small crimes compared to whites. The black arrest rate for drug manufacturing/selling skyrocketed by 363 percent after mandatory sentencing laws were passed. Compared to white’s which only went up 127 percent. This is an incredible high number given the fact that blacks only made up 12 percent of the population at the time. These massive amounts of black people were getting lots of jail time for these small crimes, which led to overpopulated prisons. Soon thereafter the mandatory sentencing laws were passed the number of sentenced inmates rose 111 percent . The prisoners were getting long sentences (10 to 20 years for drugs) so prisons weren't turning out people they

Before the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences in serious drug cases, federal judges were able to use their own discretion to impose whatever sentences that they felt appropriate, in their personal view, up to the statutory maximum. Each individual judge differs in their personal views about crime and sentencing, the sentences they imposed for similar offenses by similar defendants varied widely. (War on Drugs) Even with mandatory sentencing there are offenders that are sentenced in prison for way more time then they should have. There are offenders that would benefit more if they were allowed to stay within their community and get the treatment and resources that they need to live a productive life. These offenders would then have the chance to be in their children's lives and hopefully work to make sure that their children do not follow in their steps. What about non-violent offenders learning new "tricks" if they are incarcerated. The whole point is to rehabilitate the offenders not have them learn when they are too deterred from the life of crime.

Also the punishments imposed are cruel which lead to me to think about how minority get sentenced when it come to drug arrest. And looking on the nature of this country and the ideas it was built on, I came to the conclusion that black and minorities are going to get the bitter end of the stick, the worse sentences. The laws are just strengthening the inequality we have in American Society today. This reminded me of Karl Marx saying “the ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas”. In order words, since this country was built on racism and the leaders of the nation are white then the laws are going to favor them.

There are groups of people in the criminal justice system who considers drug addiction a personal issue, not a criminal one. This could not be further from the truth; drug abuse is illegal and should be treated as such. It is a catalyst for many crimes seen today from mugging to murder. If the numbers of those who abuse drugs are reduced, the amount of crimes associated with the addiction are also reduced. Not only will crime levels be reduced, most of those who undergo treatment tend to be better prepared to do more with their lives and not re-offend.