A Call for a Revision of Mandatory Minumum Drug Laws Essay

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

The United States’ prison population is currently number one in the world. As a nation that proclaims freedom for citizens, the United States houses more than one million more persons than Russian and almost one million more persons than China. Currently, the United States makes up five percent of the world’s population and imprisons twenty-five percent of the world’s inmate population. Drug offenders who committed no act of violence make up a large portion of the inmates in the United States. County, State, and Federal prisons are so over populated that the private sector has opened up corporate facilities to house convicted persons. The cost each year to hold a person rises, placing larger financial demands on the judicial system. The Judicial System of the United States should reevaluate the sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug offenders to alleviate the high number of people in the prison system.

Since the beginning of the war on drugs, there has been a 500% increase in incarcerations, most of them being mandatory minimum sentences. Although mandatory minimums were instituted in order to combat crime and are still sentenced in court today, research suggests that this deterrent has little to no effect.While white people make up the majority of drug arrests, minorities make up three fourths of individuals with mandatory minimums. Contrary to the claim that mandatory minimums are fair and equal, they contribute to America's problem of racial discrimination and prejudice, and mass incarceration.

In order to start and continue to accomplish the German and Norweigan approach to incarceration the U.S. must create new sentencing models in order to stop mass incarceration. The U.S. centers its system on incapacitation, removing the possibility for the individual to commit further crimes, and punitive sanctions to punish individuals. By 2012, the prison population grew by 705 percent, meaning just a little under 1.4 million inmates. This increase in inmates can be analyzed in the harsh sentences for nonviolent crimes, such as drug possession. Mandatory minimums are responsible for the increase, which is why in order for these methods to be effective, they must be gotten rid of and a new method for punishing certain crimes should be established.

Overcrowding prisons at the cost of the taxpayers’ dollar, people who need rehab sitting in prison for years at a time instead of getting the help that they need, and judges cannot do anything about it. Mandatory minimum sentencing has taken away judges’ discretion and often lay heavy sentencing. Drug offenses often receive heavier sentences than they should due to the use of mandatory minimums leaving people to question the fairness of the justice system. The use of mandatory minimums when sentencing drug offenses wrongfully incarcerates the convicted for longer than necessary rather than providing the rehabilitation the individual needs to break their habit and re-enter the public.

If mass incarceration is a cancer of society, mandatory minimum sentencing laws are the tumors that exacerbate society’s condition. These mandatory minimum sentencing laws require a certain length of prison time if

The United States is home to five percent of the world population, but 25 percent of the world’s prisoner. There must be a change to the current prison system which is doing more harm than good in American society and must be reformed. Reasons for this claim are that American prisons are too overcrowded with inmates, which creates a dangerous and unhuman environment. The cost to run a prison has gotten too expensive for tax payer pockets, and lastly the prison system is more as a punishment instead of rehabilitation with about sixteen percent of inmates most serious offence being drug charges. Prisons fall short of reforming criminals and the government is obligated to completely reform the prison systems in the United States.

The establishment of mandatory minimum sentencing laws has been a policy blunder since their proliferation in the 1980s. Mandatory minimum laws are negatively affecting the U.S, economically and socially. These laws effectively strip judges of their ability to adjudicate a fair punishment by setting a minimum sentence and handing their discretion over to prosecutors. A number of individuals and their families have been negatively affected by mandatory minimum penalties, however, there are others indirectly affected by these policies. The U.S. taxpayer has to foot the bill for these inmates, all while knowing that prison recidivism rates are tremendously high. These laws are contributing to the over-federalization of crimes by interfering with the state criminal justice system. The abolishment or reform of the federal mandatory minimums is needed to end the social and economic damage these laws have caused.

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.

“A mandatory term stipulates a minimum sentence that includes imprisonment and mandates that this sentence cannot be suspended and probation cannot be granted” (Schlesinger, 2011, p.64). These required laws are set by the Congress to have specific length amount of time given to convicts who have participated in certain criminal activities. They have provided such a poor outcome, and nothing is prospering with them in place there is no benefit in continuing to hand them out to convicted felons. Nekima Levy-Pounds (2007) states in her journal article there is only two reason that the law were created in the first place. “First, they were intended to be a rapid response to the perceived ‘exploding’ drug problem within the United States” (p.292). Which took place in the seventies with boom in use of marijuana usage and selling taking place. As well as, “the second reason for establishing the sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums was to

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.

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.

interest groups are activity involved in the legislature process (on the national level) seeking to

Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage;

For many years, a real push has been looming on the idea of legalizing now illegal drugs. This has become a hot debate throughout nations all over the world, from all walks of life. The dispute over the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs is and will continue on as an ongoing conflict. In 2001, Drug decriminalization in all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, became a nationwide law in Portugal (Greenwald). Ethan Nadelman, essayist of “Think again: Drugs,” states his side of the story on the continuing criminalization of hard drugs, in which he stand to oppose. Whether it is for the good of human rights or not, decriminalizing drugs may be a good head start for a new beginning.