Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Minimums

Mandatory minimums have long been a controversial topic in regard to the United States criminal justice system. Many people who are little to no threat to the public have received long and harsh sentences because of the mandatory minimums. The purpose of these laws was to help prevent future crime, deter people from drug use, and give violent offenders longer sentences. These legislative changes have caused the lengthening of sentences, truth in sentencing laws, and three-strike laws. Mandatory minimums require convicts to serve a minimum amount of time for certain crimes or because of their recidivism. However, most mandatory minimum sentences are given to low non-violent drug offenders, this being one of the main contributors to the United

This would lead to the creation of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984. This is a bill that covers things such as bail, sentencing, insanity defense, drug offenses, forfeiture of assets, and other things involving the criminal justice system.2 The Sentencing Reform Act, which is a part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, would take power from judges to sentence a guilty person based on the case's stature and enforce mandatory minimum sentences.3 The purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act was to eliminate unwarranted disparities and increase uniformity in the sentencing system so that no

With these crimes being so heavily criminalized and the mandatory minimums set with them, it creates a cycle of people in these communities having to deal with the criminal justice system for long periods of time. A simple charge of possession can be a minimum of a year in federal prison. A perfect example of these mandatory laws for drug offenses is New York’s Rockefeller Drug Law, which would mandate judges to give longer sentences to people convicted of drug