The Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws

seem like the best way at first, in the long run money would be better

This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as

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.

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide or LSD is a hallucinogenic drug that can be taken orally, injected or even absorbed through the skin. Once LSD has entered the body, it starts to take effects on the levels of serotonin in the brain which can cause; hallucinations, mood change, and even sensory distortion. After taking LSD, the effects on the brain usually last from 6 to 9 hours depending on multiple factors; the dosage of LSD taken, the subject taking LSD, and even the user 's mood can affect the duration of LSD use. LSD is a non-lethal, non-addictive, and a non-habit forming drug that has little to no effect on the long-term health of an individual. However, LSD has been illegal since the 1960 's. Not only did availability of LSD become scarce with the criminalization of the substance, but the legislation also put a halt on the research of the chemical as well. Much of the way LSD interacts with the brain has been left unknown. This derivative from the rye fungus Ergot has been the source of controversy that has left many people wondering why LSD has been classified as a drug that is just as dangerous to use as heroin. It becomes difficult for an individual to understand how legislation could criminalize a chemical without completely understanding how it functions and affects people. LSD should be legalized for scientific, medical and recreational usage.

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

Three salient points from the films/lectures were assessments of change from the five stages of change model (Norcross, j. c., n.d.), the Fair Sentencing Act for mandatory minimum sentences (American Civil Liberties Union, 2010), and eliminating government involvement in regulation of drugs and alcohol substance, while allowing the various states to manage control (ABC News.com, 2007).

The mandatory sentence of two years’ imprisonment is unconstitutional because it is “cruel and unusual punishment” which infringes upon the accused’s right not to be subjected to such treatment. Firstly, it is determined that the mandatory minimum sentence in this case is grossly disproportionate to the accused’s circumstances and would be reasonably foreseeable that the provision would have the same overreaching effect on other offenders. Secondly, the provision in question in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not saved by section 1 of the Charter as it has failed the prescribed Oakes test. The test gives weight to the law’s objective in comparison to the means of achieving it, which in this case, impaired too heavily on the right of the accused.

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).

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.

The passage of the Mandatory Minimum for Domestic Violence Act is imperative to the health and well being of domestic violence victims. Victims are counting on the support of authorities to aide them in their time of need. It is the duty of those in the legislation as well as police force to protect those who need it. If someone is a victim of domestic violence, the criminal justice system needs to protect him or her. Empowerment of the victim is critical when trying to stop domestic violence and law enforcement and the legal system can aid with this step. The victims get the protection and security they so desire and the offender receives the punishment as well as the treatment in order to curtail the bad behavior. The aim is not to lock up

One of the problems with the law is its principle of removing judicial discretion. This severely hinders a judge's ability to make a punishment fit the crime. While some felons

Twenty-nine offences in the Criminal Code have a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment time. The majority of these sentences were introduced with Bill C-68, a set of firearms-related legislation introduced in 1995. In addition, there are also mandatory minimum sentences for several other offences, such as child prostitution, betting, pool-making, and impaired driving. Mandatory minimum sentences impose legislated punishments, furthermore, there is no discretion for judges to reduce the sentence for anyone convicted of an offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence in Canada, which is seen by critics as a major problem in our Canadian legal system. Judges should be given legal discretion in reducing the sentence for accused individuals. A number of cases have dealt with the question of whether minimum mandatory sentences violate section 12 of the Charter. This essay will look at R. v. Latimer in depth, as well as briefly explore some additional issues that mandatory minimum sentences place on Canadian Citizens.

Federal statutory mandatory minimum penalties have existed since the early days of the nation,1 and they have continually evolved in the centuries since. As policy views have shifted over time, Congress2 and many others3 have continued to examine the role and scope of these mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal system.4 For more than thirty years, the United States Sentencing Commission (“the Commission”)5 has played a central role in this process, working with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and other interested parties to ensure that sentencing policy promotes the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”).6 Consistent with its statutory role,7 the Commission has continued to inform the

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.

o get mandatory sentencing abolished I would start by getting the community involved. (Schmalleger & Gmykla, 2015). In some guideline states the communities are encouraged to be a part of local sentencing based options such as community based sanctions. There could also be an answer with a hybrid based system with restorative sentencing guidelines where different options would be available to those convicted of less serious crimes. I could bring these alternatives to member of the legislative to vote on. I would base these on the Fair sentencing Act where issues of proportionality, equality, social debt, and truth in sentencing could be weighed against the minimum sentencing in hopes that the legislature would vote for it’s abolishment.