Essay on Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

The first section is for the mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison for first and second-degree murder and treason. The second section deals with firearms offences. The third section of mandatory minimum sentences address repeat offenders in seven distinct categories, which involve impaired driving and possession of unauthorized weapons (Canada, 2013). The last category of MMS in Canada deals with hybrid offences. These were implemented in the Canadian legislation in 1995. If an offender commits a crime that has been determined to result in a mandatory minimum sentence within the Canadian Legislation, the judge must implement that sentence no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors are. Due to this sentencing legislation, many innocent people are serving time in prison due to a false conviction and the lack of judicial discretion in their individual case. Even though mandatory minimum sentences offer more costs then rewards, some politicians, community members and victims of crime still support it due to the proposed retributive and deterrent effects. There have been many cases and arguments against mandatory minimum sentences especially due to the fact that it restricts the judge’s discretion during the sentencing process. These will be discussed in more depth throughout this paper.

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 other source I’ve read so far is web article titled Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms, by Paul Larkin. Although it is not a peer-reviewed, scholarly article, it does provide a lot of insight into both the problems and benefits of mandatory minimum sentencing, including the unduly harsh minimums, how the “move up the chain” method for law enforcement isn’t working, and how they eliminate the dishonesty in sentencing that characterized the 20th century.

1. Mandatory minimum sentencing is a protocol made to provide accurate sentencing for a crime. The purpose is to provide a standard where judges cannot reduce sentences, in order to encourage a fairer judicial system.

Another law that benefits private prisons is mandatory minimum sentences. This is a law that ensures a minimal number of years is sentenced for a certain crime, as decided by the Supreme Court. The law, therefore, doesn’t allow for the consideration of individual circumstances such as criminal history. This law has caused a tremendous increase in the prison population. The mandatory minimum sentence law is enforced on judges, but not prosecutors. However, under the circumstance, it is considered that prosecutors who would gain professionally from successful convictions, do not have sufficient incentive to exercise their discretion responsibly.

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 concept of mandatory minimum sentencing fundamentally does not work because it clogs the prisons with people that will not be reformed by the prison system and the individuals being put in prison are not the individuals that really need to be put in prison, like drug kingpins. There are also many cases of unjust sentencing caused by mandatory minimum sentencing.It also limits plea bargains that the

Currently Arizona holds the ninth highest incarceration rate in the nation. Responsible for the drastic rate of incarcerated inmates, is the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have named Arizona the incarceration capital. By implementing the mandatory minimum sentencing law, the discretion that lay within the position as a judge is challenged by that of the prosecutor. With Arizona’s sentencing enhancement making little distinction between individuals who are responsible for either serious or petty crimes,

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 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

It allows the government to set laws which everyone is mostly aware of. By keeping these laws, citizens have the knowledge of the punishment before committing the crime. Also, the crimes that have mandatory minimum sentence are dangerous crimes such as manslaughter. By keeping the mandatory minimum sentence, high risk offenders are kept in prisons for a longer time. This allows communities to be a lot safer.

There are also cons of mandatory sentencing. One con is that mandatory sentencing can be unfair. Mandatory minimum sentences have no choice but award the same minimum punishment to everyone who commits the same crime regardless of the individual’s situation or circumstances. For example a criminal with a very lengthy criminal record and a first time offender will both get the same amount of time. Another con is that mandatory sentencing can lead to overcrowding in prisons. With mandatory minimum sentencing people will go to jail even if it is their first offense. As a result of this people who should have possibly got lighter sentences or maybe sentencing that did not involve jail time, like probation, will end up in jail and this causes overcrowding. Overcrowding can then cause even more problems to the prisoner’s health, safety, and security. An increased prison population leads to more expenses and these

Mandatory sentencing involves the implementation of legislation to remove an element of judicial discretion by imposing minimum or mandatory sentences for a particular offence or type of offender. From the perspective of society, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the rule of law in ensuring that laws are predictable and applied equally across all individuals by aiming to match the punishment to the crime, as well as reduce crime and recidivism. Depending on the outlook taken, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the individual’s right to a fair trial as it encourages consistency but by the same token a conflict arises in that it strips the judiciary of the power to tailor sentences to the unique circumstances of each case.

Determinate sentencing has been found to reduce sentencing disparity but it also creates flexibility and cost problems (Shepherd, 2002). It prevents judges and officials from adjusting penalties in keeping the proportion between crime and punishment. It also tends to lengthen prison sentences and stays, which in turn increase costs in incarceration. Those who favor it argue that the costs are compensated by crime reduction through rehabilitation, incapacitation, and deterrence. But rehabilitation and incapacitation produce only limited benefits. Keeping offenders behind bars for long periods clearly proves that criminal rehabilitation is impossible (Shepherd). It also results in unfair sentencing and legal manipulation of the judicial system, which defeat the intent of the legislature (Lawrence, 2012). There are mitigating circumstances, which this type sentencing does not consider. A seasoned drug dealer convicted with 30 lbs