The Severity Of Sentencing Guidelines

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unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.

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 This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.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.

Tougher sentencing is not likely to reduce illegal drug use or serious crime associated with drugs (Alexander, 2010; Mauer, 2009; Whitford & Yates, 2009). Despite that, politicians and law enforcement personnel continue to advocate for stronger sentences for those who take or sell drugs of any kind. The jails and prisons across the United States are filling up with drug offenders, and some believe that there are better uses for those jail cells and that there are many crimes that are more severe and significant. These are the crimes that should be provided with tougher sentencing guidelines, but yet illegal drug use is still a serious crime and should not go unpunished. What should be done, and how should changes be made? Those are tough questions that have to be explored and that do not have any easy answers for those who make the laws and those who enforce them. Drug incarceration has been on the rise, with mixed results. According to King (2008), "overall, between 1980 and 2003, the number of drug offenders in prison or jail increased by 1100% from 41,100 in 1980 to 493,800 in 2003, with a remarkable rise in arrests concentrated in African American communities."

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.

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,

Similar to the Sentencing Reform Act, the purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission is to prevent inequity of sentencing among federal judges. It’s role is to serve as a strict guideline for Judges to adhere and limits the discretion at which a Judge may alter the length of sentence. The goal of this commission is to hamper factors such as race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc to affect the length of sentence, and aims for the guideline to stand on a neutral ground.

Common crimes in the judicial system include drug offenses, firearm offenses, and sexual assault, and the depending on the judge the repercussions could vary. To have unvaried penalties, mandatory minimum sentencing laws were enacted. These laws help keep citizens protected, while criminals are incarcerated. John Oliver, the host of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, talks about how mandatory minimum sentencing increases the number of criminals incarcerated, and he believes the length of their prison time is longer than it should be. He shows videos of criminals who were convicted under the mandatory minimum law with drug crimes. These videos explain how this law affected each of these individuals and their families, and some were sentenced to life in prison for their crimes. Oliver states, “Mandatory minimum sentencing laws designed to stop [drug crimes] have done way more harm than good (Oliver).” Although Oliver believes mandatory minimums are damagining, it was an illegal action that put those criminals in jail. Without breaking the law, they would have a free life. Removing mandatory minimum sentencing on drug offenses from the judicial system is unethical. It is necessary in the judicial system, because the safety of citizens is in the hands of judges. With drug crimes that are reoccurring in the court system, mandatory minimums enable judges to give sentences to criminals without sympathy interfering with the penalty deserved. Along with this, it keeps criminals off

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.

The mandatory minimum sentencing laws were passed as an effort to combat the war on drugs, with the anticipation that it would lock away high-level drug lords and discourage others from dealing drugs. However, the law requires judges to issue unwarranted, lengthy sentences without regard to the facts of the case. As a result, the law has overpopulated our prisons with nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, while the high-level drug lords are still free. This is because of the practice that one’s sentence can be reduced if they testify against others, and the high-level drug offenders have more to offer than those on the lower level. The Smarter Sentencing

Congress sought to reform the sentencing system by designing sentencing Guideline rules that were uniformly to control disparity. In order to reform the sentencing system, Congress created the Sentencing Commission in charge of designing a new sentencing system using multiple sources to evaluate the means to control the source of disparity (Bowman, 1996; Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). Once the Guidelines were created and implemented, studies conducted by the Commission reports that it has increased drastically especially for drug offenses due to different adaptations to the Guidelines and the different types of offenses prosecuted in different regions (Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). The variation in sentence lengths is analyzed based on the data evidence shows 73 percent of differences in federal sentence length causing unwarranted disparity (Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). The cause of unwarranted disparity is influenced by policies promulgated by Congress that were supposedly designed to amend the effects of uneven charging and plea-bargaining decisions. With prosecutors in control of determining an offenders sentencing, they can impose several enhancement to depart from the Guidelines to provide leniency. However, such enhancement resulted in sentences disproportional to the appropriate serious of the offense that would be otherwise applied to the case (Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). The Commission reports there is little empirical research in exploring why prosecutors use its discretion to apply enhanced penalties and depart from the Guidelines (Tonry, 1996; Fifteen Years of Guidelines,

Unnecessary rules and regulations is what have become of the required minimum sentencing laws. Laws that are put intact so that Congress might have control over what happens with a convict in the judiciary court system. It is essential that these laws are dealt away with; they are creating greater harms than benefits for the public. They are costing the American people from their money, abstinence from their families, and to some extent even rights as U.S. citizens. The United States Congress should repeal mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

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).