Mandatory Sentence In Canada

There are many mandatory minimum sentences that have been placed in the Canadian law to help prevent crime from happening and to

Less restrictive drug laws would lower the population of prisons. Courts deal with a high amount cases due to drugs. According to Goldberg (2012), the criminal justice system is becoming ineffective because of the high amounts of drug cases which, is overburdening the system. This means that there are too many cases that are being processed through the system, which creates an issue of overcrowding in prisons. The mandatory minimum laws create a burden for the system because all of the cases have to be processes creating an ineffective system. According to Nutt, King, and Nichols (2013), there are extreme legal consequences for drug possession. Less restrictive laws would help alleviate the burden on the system. By having less restrictive laws the amount of cases would drop greatly and then the system would be more effective than it is right now.

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

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 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 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

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 minimums have been wreaking havoc on the prison systems for years by giving first offense, non-violent, drug offenders outrageous sentences. This has been clogging up the system with low-level drug offenders. According to the US Department of Justice, the federal prisons were filled with 50% of non-violent drug offenders, while 7% of that same total are violent offenders (1,17). Having such a high amount of low level prisoners incarcerated is wasting taxpayer’s money, the Federal Register explains “The fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2014 was $30,619.85” (Samuels). That’s only one person, now multiply that number by the

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 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.

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

Mandatory minimums and three strike laws, are they really the answer to the crime problem America has faced for years? Many would say yes, including me, as long as it is for a violent crime such as murder, rape or arson; some feel that even theft, drug trafficking or possession, and burglary are all worthy of the 25-to-life sentence that can be carried under the mandatory minimums for three strike laws. A three-strike law is a law that states that you will be sentenced to 25years to life for three violations and convictions of a law. Where the three strike laws have mandatory sentences, mandatory sentences aren’t always tied in with three strike laws. A mandatory minimum is a law that requires someone

Every American rely on the justice system to maintain law and order. Many have the expectations of the justice system to meet and exceed at the necessary objectives of our laws. One the other hand many also expect to have a justice system that is fair and able to rehabilitate offenders. Currently America has an overextended justice system that is falling apart at the joints. The current policies and procedures that focus on crime control, punishment and prevention has been tilted towards punishment. With this concept of punishment the outcome is America is experiencing a high rate of imprisonment especially when it pertains to nonviolent offenders. This is the direct result of using mandatory minimum sentencing requirements. Society hinder access to judiciary relief leaving offenders to unconstitutional and harsh conditions of confinement.

One problem in mandatory sentencing laws is, they do not reduce crime as well as they are supposed to. One may argue that mandatory minimums actually do

Mandatory minimum sentences have become an everyday part of the American trial courts. Used to find an “equal hand” in sentencing and find the “appropriate” charge for crimes. I believe that they are a direct violation to the separation of powers laid out in the US constitution. Having sentencing guidelines that require judges to punish people with X amount of years based on a certain crime destroys the very fabric of the US constitutions coequal design. While congress is able create nowhere is it stated that it is allowed to adjudicate crime but that is exactly what it is doing in the case of mandatory minimums. Taking the ability of the court to check legislation by saying punishments are too harsh or the pursuit of a specific crime is being over done. This is not a partisan issue people like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Kamila Harris, and Cory Booker have all come together to try to fight this overreach of legislative power. There is a constitutional necessity for the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branch to provide a check on how legislation is enforced and adjudicated.