Essay On Mandatory Sentencing

Rehnquist, a judge himself at this point, believes that mandatory sentencing is the result of knee jerk reactions from legislators. Not only that, but the sentences are unusually harsh on first time offenders, a group which is usually offered some form of leniency in light of the fact that they are not habitual offenders. Rehnquist argues that a better policy would be to return to former guidelines. This is the stance this policy seeks to take. That having such inflexible rules on sentencing does not account for the all the variables that are involved in a the legal process, such as the age of offender, past criminal history, mitigating circumstances and other factors that experienced judges would know to take into account when handing down sentences.

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.

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 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.

In the U.S. the “War on Drugs” has been at the forefront of debates and discussion since it was formally declared by President Nixon in 1971. This war continues to have many problematic consequences today, the most notable being mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offences. This issue has been extensively researched by Kieran Riley with an article in the Boston University Law Journal titled “Trial by Legislature: Why Statutory Mandatory Minimum Sentences Violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine”, Paul Cassell and Erik Luna with a peer-reviewed scholarly article titled “Sense and Sensibility in Mandatory Minimum Sentencing”, and the Families Against Mandatory Minimums organization with a policy report. All of these sources came to the same conclusion, that the many negative aspects of mandatory minimums far outweigh the few positive aspects. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenses that unfairly incarcerate people are against the fundamental values of the American criminal justice system and should be repealed.

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

In addition to the economical problems mandatory minimums contribute to, some adversaries suggest that mandatory minimums may not even be effective, particularly in regards to reducing drug related crimes. In many organized drug operations when one drug supplier is caught and incarcerated another swiftly takes his place (Caulkins). Furthermore, social scientists and public policy analysts researching the effectiveness of mandatory minimums have found there to be little conclusive evidence that mandatory minimums do in fact reduce crime (The United States Sentencing Commission).

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.

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.

Overcrowding prisons at the cost of the taxpayers’ dollar, people who need rehab sitting in prison for years at a time instead of getting the help that they need, and judges cannot do anything about it. Mandatory minimum sentencing has taken away judges’ discretion and often lay heavy sentencing. Drug offenses often receive heavier sentences than they should due to the use of mandatory minimums leaving people to question the fairness of the justice system. The use of mandatory minimums when sentencing drug offenses wrongfully incarcerates the convicted for longer than necessary rather than providing the rehabilitation the individual needs to break their habit and re-enter the public.

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.

“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

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

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

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.