Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws For Drug Offences

For many years, drugs have been the center of crime and the criminal justice system in the United States. Due to this widespread epidemic, President Richard Nixon declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971 with a campaign that promoted the prohibition of illicit substances and implemented policies to discourage the overall production, distribution, and consumption. The War on Drugs and the U.S. drug policy has experienced the most significant and complex challenges between criminal law and the values of today’s society. With implemented drug polices becoming much harsher over the years in order to reduce the overall misuse and abuse of drugs and a expanded federal budget, it has sparked a nation wide debate whether or not they have created more harm than good. When looking at the negative consequences of these policies not only has billions of dollars gone to waste, but the United States has also seen public health issues, mass incarceration, and violent drug related crime within the black market in which feeds our global demands and economy. With this failed approach for drug prohibition, there continues to be an increase in the overall production of illicit substances, high rate of violence, and an unfavorable impact to our nation.

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.

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

This paper explores several different sources that cover some aspect of how the United States Penal System went from the Rehabilitative Model to a punitive system. Bryan Stevenson and Betsy Matthews have written about how drug enforcement and the “War on Drugs” are responsible. Yeoman Lowbrow’s analysis of the crime rate and statistics will be considered alongside Matthews’ analysis of the different political parties’ changing views. The change in United States sentencing practices as a result will also be considered. In the conclusion a brief summary of a predicted future will be

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.

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.

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.

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."

Why are so many violent criminals walking free while so many non-violent offenders are locked up? Although various aspects have fueled this inequity of justice, the factors that have contributed the most to this development are, undoubtedly, the War on Drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing laws which have led to punishment disproportionate to the offense.

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).

The mandatory imprisonment policies written for the judicial system are creating disparity of minority inmate population primarily due to non-violent drug crimes and the unjust mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

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.

Laws like three strikes, mandatory minimum sentencing, powder and crack cocaine disparities, and others, must be eradicated. The prisons are overfilled with non-violent, victimless offenders living environments that are overcrowded, in poor condition, and exploitive of prisoners’ lack of basic rights. This is neither conducive to the betterment of prisoners, nor the improvement of their life trajectories once they leave. Additionally, most drug laws produce racially disparate outcomes, furthering stereotypes and the inherent criminalization of men of color. In the long run, America must move toward alternative sentencing programs for low-level and non-violent offenders that issue penalties that are actually proportionate with real public safety

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.