The Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Law

Mandatory minimum laws, which set different minimum sentences for crack and powder cocaine possession, are policies that are inflexible, “one-size-fits-all” sentencing laws that undermine the constitutional principle that the punishment should fit the crime and undermine the judicial power to punish an individual in context of the specific circumstances. Similarly, 3-strikes laws also ignores judicial discretion. Truth-in-sentencing policies refer to policies created to have a convict serve the full sentence, regardless of good behavior or other deterrent. These policies are created to only incapacitate people—more specifically minorities—not to rehabilitate them. More people in jail and longer sentences are not helping ensure public safety.

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

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unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.

Most of us would agree that drug abuse and addiction is no respecter of persons. Regardless of age, race, gender, or economic status drug addiction can rear its ugly head in any situation. Like most Americans, I have personally been affected by the pitfalls of drug addiction from relatives and friends. Therefore, I have witnessed firsthand the devastation that it leaves on family members, friends, and the communities, in which they reside. Since its inception in 1986 the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, as caused more harm than good. At the start of this Act, Congress implemented maximum drug quantities initially targeted at “serious” and “major” drug traffickers. Congress concluded that 500 grams of powder cocaine would trigger a five-year mandatory minimum, and five kilograms would trigger a ten-year mandatory minimum. However, for crack cocaine the triggering quantities were significantly less. Only five grams of crack cocaine would prompt five-years and just fifty grams to prompt a ten-year sentence. This massive gap became known as the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity. Soon after several states began to legislate sentencing disparities between powder cocaine and crack cocaine into their criminal codes. The original targets of

The mandatory minimum sentencing is about a fixed ruling of a crime that a judge is expected to deliver. Congress has enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws. It was to impose the mandatory sentencing an offender would receive for crimes that were committed. The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes committed on society, such as violent, drug-related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat offender then it should be left up the presiding judge to serve out justice. People who commit low level crimes should be punished but not to the extent of going to prison for a long period of time. Congress has enacted these guidelines so that the criminal justice system would not be burden with smaller crimes or be overwhelmed. Lengthy sentencing hearings seldom are necessary, the disputes about sentencing elements must be resolved with sensitivity concern and carefulness. A dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination then a judge will use his discretion to hand down equal and fair judgement. Legislator statements during debates on mandatory

Inconsistent punishment currently issued by judges creates an increase in persons sentenced to prison. There is a moral dilemma by incarcerating a person for a non-violent crime based on the type of drug. Crack cocaine holds a much tougher sentencing guideline than powder cocaine. According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, prior to the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act, it took one hundred times as much powder cocaine as crack cocaine to receive the same five, ten, or twenty year mandatory minimum prison sentence. After the Fair Sentencing Act, the ratio is

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

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

Since the inception of mandatory minimum cocaine laws in 1986 to the advent of the Armstrong case, not a single white offender had been convicted of a crack cocaine offense in federal courts serving Los Angeles and its six surrounding counties. Rather, virtually all white offenders were prosecuted in state court, where they were not subject to that drug’s lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. The impact of the decision to prosecute the black defendants in federal court was significant. In federal court they faced a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 10 years and a maximum of life without parole if convicted of selling more than 50 grams of crack. By contrast, if prosecuted in California state court, the defendants would have received a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum of five years (United States v. Armstrong, 1996).

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).

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.

Mandatory minimum sentences are set by Congress and Judges can't change the sentencing. They apply to drug offenses and require automatic minimum prison terms for certain crimes. For example, selling 28 grams of crack cocaine triggers a minimum sentence of five years in prison. Even though Robyn's judge believed that Robyn deserved lower sentencing, it was not under his discretion. Bush-Baskette (2000) commented on how mandatory minimum sentencing standards had a major impact on women and being the sole caretaker of minor children was no longer being considered for sentencing purposes. It is clear that Robyn had become sober therefore her sentencing should be less than 10 years. Her sentencing not only impacts her life, but also impacts her children. Prison is not an effective treatment to drug use and crimes, especially low-level

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

Mandatory minimum sentencing is when a judge sets down a fixed minimal term in prison for people convicted of certain crimes, regardless of the role that was played in the crime (Levinthal, 2012). It is up to the judge to rule on what the sentence should be based on the crime. There are three key facts that the judge take into account for sentencing, the type of drug, the weight of the drug, and the number of prior convictions that a person has prior to being caught for the present offense. The arguments for the mandatory minimum sentence is that this is a great way to ensure that a person will spend time in jail for their role in the drug crime. Another argument for the mandatory minimum sentence is to send a message to others who are

When handing down a mandatory minimum sentencing a judge must impose a fixed minimal term in prison for individuals convicted of certain crimes, no matter what their role in the crime or other circumstances. A minimum prison sentence of five years is given to anyone that is convicted of selling 500 grams of powdered cocaine under federal law Guidelines for sentences are based on the type of crime, the weight of the drug, and the number of prior convictions, and defenders are required to serve the entire sentence (85 percent in some state) without parole. A judge can only issue a sentence shorter than mandatory minimum only if the defendant provided corporation in the prosecution of another offender (Levinthal, 2012, pg. 132).