Essay On Mandatory Sentencing

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

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 has been plaguing the justice system of the United States of America for too many years and therefore must be abolished. If mandatory minimum sentencing were to be done away with, then the criminal justice system could finally start to bring desperately needed change to itself and start to get back to where it needs to be; a system that takes people with a problem and returns a reformed individual capable of positively contributing to society. By getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, the prison populations could be reduced, allowing for more attention to be given to the reformation of each individual giving them a better chance at success. The research shows that getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing will be more cost effective, keep prison populations lower, limit unjust sentencing, and make sure that the punishment that an individual receives is proportional to the crime that they have been convicted of.

While the United States’ justice system has been a model for many countries around the world, the injustice of certain aspects in our court’s system is prominent. Mandatory minimums are just one example the of injustice in our justice system. The Supreme Court has “…casted doubt on the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines used for nearly two decades” (Kenneth Jost, 2004), despite this, nothing has been done to correct it. And while the idea of mandatory minimums is a good thing, they don’t work in the American justice system or in current American society.

Before the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences in serious drug cases, federal judges were able to use their own discretion to impose whatever sentences that they felt appropriate, in their personal view, up to the statutory maximum. Each individual judge differs in their personal views about crime and sentencing, the sentences they imposed for similar offenses by similar defendants varied widely. (War on Drugs) Even with mandatory sentencing there are offenders that are sentenced in prison for way more time then they should have. There are offenders that would benefit more if they were allowed to stay within their community and get the treatment and resources that they need to live a productive life. These offenders would then have the chance to be in their children's lives and hopefully work to make sure that their children do not follow in their steps. What about non-violent offenders learning new "tricks" if they are incarcerated. The whole point is to rehabilitate the offenders not have them learn when they are too deterred from the life of crime.

“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

The court system is an organization in order to provide swift and accurate judgement to the public. When an individual commits a crime they are summoned to appear before a judge. The judge is the individual who will determine their fines, jail time and the overall outcome of a case. This paper will discuss mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing guidelines.

Miscarriage of justice is reflected in various states across the nation, where there are far too many occurrences where individuals have been convicted of crimes and subjected to unfair mandatory sentencing. “Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require binding prison terms of a particular length for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes” (Famm, n.d.). “Mandatory minimum sentences imposed by statute are intended to achieve consistency in sentencing at the expense of individual consideration of the contextual sentencing factors” (Harvard Law Review, 2011). “These inflexible, one-size-fits-all sentencing laws may seem like a quick-fix solution for crime, but they undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offense” (Famm, n.d) “Mandatory sentencing laws cause federal and state prison populations to soar, leading to overcrowding, exorbitant costs to taxpayers, and diversion of funds from law enforcement” (Famm, n.d.)

The implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing has allowed for the substitution of prosecutorial discretion in the place of judicial discretion. The purpose of mandatory minimums was to eliminate or reduce sentencing disparities. However, they have simply shifted discretion allowing for prosecutors to have unreviewable discretion over whether to even charge a violation of law with the mandatory minimum sentencing. Unreviewed discretion caused by mandatory minimums may be allowing innocent people to slip through the cracks. James B. Halsted of the University of Florida conducted a study that examined anti-drug statutes (in the 1980s) by analyzing how the criminal justice system could possibly be incarcerating marginally culpable or innocent defendants due to ease of convictability of those prosecuted under mandatory minimum statutes (Halsted). Halsted makes a claim that “it appears that the whole purpose of mandatory minimum sentences structures is to ensure that trial judges have practically no discretion when determining the amount of punishment they will impose when sentencing a defendant convicted of a crime like trafficking” (Halsted). Placing discretion in the hands of prosecutors is clearly more disagreeable than allowing judicial discretion. Prosecutors do not have proper training in exercising discretion and do not have incentive to exercise discretion responsibly.

While throughout history, there have always been some types of mandatory minimums, for example, “English common law required the death penalty for all felonies” (Greenblatt, Nathan). Up until the 1980s however, United States judges had a wide scope of discretion with sentencing for convictions. Judges were almost entirely free to sentence the convicted criminal however they wished. In the later 1960s and early 1970s, many legal activists disagreed with how sentencing was being conducted and pushed for sentencing reform, thus beginning in the mid-1980s, Congress began passing legislation on sentencing, giving birth to the ideas of mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines (Bernick and Larkin). “Mandatory minimums require uniformed, automatic, binding prison terms of a particular length

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.

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

These mandatory minimum sentences are perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences. There is a respectable body of opinion which believes that these mandatory minimums impose unduly harsh punishment for first-time offenders -- particularly for 'mules ' who played only a minor role in a drug distribution scheme. Be that as

When we talk about mandatory-minimum sentences, we first have to look at the time frame when this law came into effect. The country was in a period where violate crime was on an increase due to the drug trade. The demand for drugs in society was at an all time high rate.

Another concern mandatory minimums pose is the lack of individualized sentencing. As previously mentioned when discussing the positive aspects of mandatory minimums some view consistency of sentencing as a favorable product of mandatory