Mandatory Minimums Should Not Be Mandatory

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.

In total it created unwarranted disparity that interfered with the Commission goal of preventing disparity as well as fair and rational judicial system (Nachmanoff, 2010). The four-year extensive review recommendation for improvement concluded, “Congress should repeal mandatory minimum sentence provisions, whereupon the U.S.S.C should reconsider the Guidelines applicable to the affected offense” (1991 U.S.S.C. Report). They stated that mandatory minimums “create penalties so distorted as to hamper federal criminal” (1991 U.S.S.C.

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 mandatory minimum sentencing is about a fixed ruling of a crime that a judge is expected to deliver. Congress has enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws. It was to impose the mandatory sentencing an offender would receive for crimes that were committed. The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes committed on society, such as violent, drug-related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat offender then it should be left up the presiding judge to serve out justice. People who commit low level crimes should be punished but not to the extent of going to prison for a long period of time. Congress has enacted these guidelines so that the criminal justice system would not be burden with smaller crimes or be overwhelmed. Lengthy sentencing hearings seldom are necessary, the disputes about sentencing elements must be resolved with sensitivity concern and carefulness. A dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination then a judge will use his discretion to hand down equal and fair judgement. Legislator statements during debates on mandatory

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.

With eliminating mandatory minimums it will shorten and even eliminate those who have committed nonviolent crimes from spending an unnecessary length of time in prisons. Many experts and people involved with the criminal justice system have looked into and tried to do away with the outdated laws passed to keep those who have

Mandatory sentencing has good intentions that people should be required to serve a minimum amount of time for the crime they committed. If someone broke into a person’s house and stole a lot of their belongings, the victims would have a little assurance that the criminal will pay for what they did by going to jail for at least ten years or more. But since incarceration does not always convince or prevent ex-convicts from re-offending, many people might question why they are even let back into society. Incarceration is pricy and the purpose of this paper is to find ways that reduce the number of people locked up in a beneficiary way to society. If people are more likely to commit a crime after incarceration, then having someone serve ten years of prison for having drugs on them will probably increase their rate of reoffending more than if they were in there for a shorter period of

The harsh drug related punishments implemented through the War on Drugs were intended to prevent people from getting involved in drug use and business. However, studies have demonstrated that mass incarceration has the opposite effect. Mass incarceration is largely the result

The whole point of having the judicial system is to have equality for all in order to harbor an environment of harmony and faith by the public we are serving. I do not believe that having mandatory sentencing will reduce crime on its own. However, I do believe that everyone should know what they can expect for punishment when they are guilty of a crime. Let’s assume committing a crime in one state typically has a sentence of 1 year in prison. What if it were 5 years in another state for the same crime? This may in fact only increase that crime occurrence in the state where the punishment would be less. This would cause a concentration of certain crimes in areas which would become uninhabitable and impossible to control. I also believe to be effective, we would need to allow judges the ability to use their discretion in cases where they may need to deviate from the minimum requirements depending on mitigating circumstances. This will help keep the guidelines from being too intricate and confusing for everyone to understand. In keeping with the spirit of checks and balances, if this is abused then the judge could be facing discipline. Keeping this in mind, we should have mandatory minimum sentencing as a deterrent while allowing judges the ability to make changes if they feel they are absolutely needed. This will allow the judicial system to be effective and keep moving

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 mandatory minimum sentencing was developed in an effort to make the criminals who committed the crime pay for what he or she did as well as deter other individuals from committing crimes. Though the goal of sentencing models was

Not only does the death penalty not deter crime but it is also very expensive. The death penalty costs so much because of the appeal process. The appeal process is a very long and expensive process that can go on forever and costs the government millions. Many assume that abolishing the death penalty is wrong because it becomes unfair to the taxpayers because they think the cost is less than that of life in prison without parole. However life in prison is less expensive than the death penalty (Bedau). The death penalty is actually three times more than keeping a prisoner in prison for life without parole (Messerli). Death penalty trials are costly as well. “[S]tudies estimate that death penalty trials cost $1

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

Mandatory minimum sentences are court decisions where judicial discretion is limited by law. Usually when people are convicted of certain crimes they must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. The article I picked to review is an article on mandatory minimum sentences. The article reviews the pros and cons of mandatory sentencing. I will go over the pros and cons described in the article and give my opinion on how I feel about them.

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.