The Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws During The United States

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unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.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 This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.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

The United States prison population has grown seven-fold over the past forty years, and many Americans today tend to believe that the high levels of incarceration in our country stem from factors such as racism, socioeconomic differences, and drugs. While these factors have contributed to the incarceration rate present in our country today, I argue that the most important reason our country has such a high incarceration rate is the policy changes that have occurred since the 1970s. During this time, the United States has enacted policy changes that have produced an astounding rise in the use of imprisonment for social control. These policy changes were enacted in order to achieve greater consistency, certainty, and severity and include sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three strikes laws (National Research Council 2014). Furthermore, I argue that mandatory sentencing has had the most significant effect on the incarceration rate.

Secondly, they should be addressed the needs of offenders and the deficits in their lives that contributed to their offending. And thirdly, sentences should not be severe, intrusive, or damaging to an offender’s later decarceration to live a righteous life than is minimally necessary to achieve valid purposes of the sentence he or she receives (Tonry 508). An addition to these are proportionality, which means that sentences should correspond in severity to the seriousness of the crimes which they are inflicted. Also, regularity, which signifies that sentences should be guided by official standards to make the process clear, procedures fair, and allow judges to be more accountable (Tonry 508). Moreover, the American Criminal Code must be taken into consideration. Two features must be altered if the sentencing is to become fair, effective, and just. Firstly, the harsh sentencing laws must be revoked, and secondly the limits, that matches the offense seriousness, must be put on the lawful sentences (Tonry 514). Moreover, Tonry mentioned about future changes that, “If adopted, they would greatly reduce the number of people in prison in future years, but their adoption would not significantly reduce the scale of American imprisonment in 2015 or in 2020. Doing that will require enactment of new laws authorizing reconsideration of sentences now being served (Tonry 523).

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws entail binding prison terms to a certain length for people who have been convicted of state or federal crimes. These intransigent, “universally adaptable” sentencing laws may seem like an easy and quick solution for crime. However, these laws prevent judges from suiting the punishment to the criminal according to their offenses. Mandatory minimum sentencing causes not only state but federal prisons to overcrowd, extortionate tax costs, and deflect from law enforcement funds.

“The Smarter Sentencing Act (S. 502/H.R. 920) is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) in the U.S. Senate and Representatives Raul Labrador (R-ID) and Bobby Scott (D-VA) in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill does not repeal any federal mandatory minimum sentences, but instead reduces prison costs and populations by creating fairer, less costly minimum terms for nonviolent drug offenders.”

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 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 minimum sentencing means a person convicted of a crime must be imprisoned for a minimum term, as opposed to leaving the length of punishment up to judges”( US Legal, Inc.). Since, the 90’s American Judicial Systems Mandatory Sentencing have been around and it originally purpose was to get rid of the transferring and selling of drugs on the street. The U.S. disgned the mandatory minimum sentencing to send a clear message to everyone that

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).

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

mandatory minimum sentencing. The Committee decided the guidelines would be set the levels in the Drug Quantity Table (Hinojosa 1998). This would be done to create a set standard for levels 26 and 32. see table 1 {Table 1 About Here} These levels would work along with a standard set of program ranges that are above the statutory mandatory minimum sentencing laws (Weld 1986).

When a person is convicted or pleads guilty, the judge will decide on the appropriate sentencing. In the sentencing process it can go from criminal offenses, can also range from probation and community service to prison and even the death penalty. The judge will decide what type of punishment is needed for the crime violated.

Hello Albert, thank you, for your delightfully informative post. There are many offenses that should not have minimum sentences which would relieve the overcrowding problems today’s prisons currently face. A lot of these non-violent crimes could be deterred through shaming, for example once this student sped on a military installation in southern california on marine corps base camp pendleton and he had to hold a sign that informed people of the speed limit and to obey the speed limit or else they would end up holding the sign as well which is a base order(Jamal, 2010). Through this event the goals of sentencing according to the commonwealth law bulletin of “retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation of the offender” was

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.