More handpicked essays just for you.
Mandatory minimum sentencing thesis
Effects of mandatory minimum sentences on correctional system
Mandatory minimum sentencing thesis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Mandatory minimum sentencing thesis
Pfaff mentions the prison population is full of drug crimes while other people shouldn't be there. The prisons population would reduce if there wasn’t a lot of a drug crimes offender there. According to Lock In “war and drugs have fuelled tougher responses to all sorts of crimes, including those not related to drug use or drug trafficking, this indirect effect could matter even if the direct impact of war is less than believed” (Pfaff,2017, P22). Most people sell drugs to earn an income because there is no employment in their neighborhoods. A person who is on probation has to sell drug because that is the only job available to them at the moment.
Now, overcrowding is a major issue in the United States prison system. According to the FBI Releases Preliminary Semiannual Crime Statistics for 2015, the most common crime was possession drug crimes, followed by property crimes. This shows that majority of those incarcerated in prison are there for nonviolent crimes. The government should change their drug law policies and instead of doing prison time, be forced to pay a hefty fine. This way, it can reduce jail and prison populations and thereby reducing recidivism
The role of the government is to keep everyone and everything in line. The government should have a sentencing reform because with the system we have now it 's just making things worse. Some people are being placed in jail because of their color when there are real criminals that are set free when they really did do something wrong like murdering someone. The government should have a sentencing reform because the system now is just making things worse. To begin with, The government should have a sentencing reform because the system now is just making things worse.
As details of a key compromise measure that did not meet the intended goals became evident, the same groups who had earlier supported the FSA, were now criticizing it. The new law only reduces, but does not eliminate, the sentencing disparity that appears to be directed towards those of the African American community. The criticisms are centered at too many of the low-level drug dealers are being sentenced and incarcerated by the federal criminal justice system (Reid 2012). During this time of accusations by former supporters, the bipartisan cooperation, who were key to the passage of the FSA, created an historic political event. To demonstrate their frustrations they used intense partisan wrangling for a large range of different political issues upon Capitol Hill, and dominated the debate and stymied the proceedings (Gertsman
“Mandatory minimum sentencing, a policy that requires a judge to impose a fixed minimal term in prison for individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of the individual’s role in the crime or other mitigating circumstances” (Levinthal, 20112, pg. 130). A minimum sentenced required by law are typically 5 or 10 years in prison that must be served when a person is convicted of certain federal and state crimes. The mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes are based on the type of drugs, the weight of drugs or quantities and the number of prior convictions of the offender. Different drugs have different set quantities that lead to mandatory sentencing. The criticism against this type of sentencing is because it takes away from the punishment
With the economy in the turmoil that it is in America cannot continue to support these sentencing guidelines. The Mandatory Article Sentencing declares that the laws are becoming a huge drain on the Justice Bureau’s budget, and in 2012 the United States had far beyond more people incarcerated than any other country. Most of these prisoners are low-level drug offenders sentenced under mandatory sentencing guidelines with a cost draining on American taxpayers $6.8 billion a year, as of 2012. These costs do not seem to have a ceiling and continue eating up about twenty-five percent of the federal justice system’s yearly budget.
Defined as a public policy that imposes an outlined amount of prison time based on the crime committed and the defendant’s criminal history, these sentences dictate that a judge must enact a statutory fixed penalty on individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Such laws have removed discretionary sentencing power from judges, instead focusing on severe punishments in line with national drug and crime concerns. While the original goal of mandatory minimum sentences was to deter potential criminals, reduce drug use, control judicial prudence, the policy has had extreme consequences such as sentencing imbalances and
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
The current system that incarcerates people over and over is unsustainable and does not lower the crime rate nor encourage prisoner reformation. When non-violent, first time offenders are incarcerated alongside violent repeat offenders, their chance of recidivating can be drastically altered by their experience in prison. Alternative sentencing for non-violent drug offenders could alleviate this problem, but many current laws hinder many possible solutions. Recently lawmakers have made attempts to lower the recidivism rates in America, for example the Second Chance Act helps aid prisoners returning into society after incarceration. The act allows states to appropriate money to communities to help provide services such as education, drug treatment programs, mental health programs, job corps services, and others to aid in offenders returning to society after incarceration (Conyers, 2013).
Mandatory minimums are court decisions whereas judicial discretion, or the judge’s ability to lower or increase the sentence, is limited by law. With the aim to lower crime rates, certain crimes, especially nonviolent drug crimes, are punished with a minimum number of years in prison. But, in many cases, specifically nonviolent drug offenses, this sort of punishment never reflects the crime. Because the context of the crime must always be considered when sentencing someone, and mandatory minimums throw context right out the window . . . Not only do mandatory minimums undermine justice by preventing judges the power to lower a sentence based on the context of the crime, but they also contribute to America’s rising prison population.
Inconsistent applications of mandatory minimums generate disparate sentences among similarly situated offenders. Some basic facts may trigger the same minimum sentence for a low-level drug courier and a narcotics kingpin, for example, while enormous
In 1972, former President Richard Nixon made his infamous statements regarding crime and drug abuse. In this speech, he declared a war on crime and drugs and intended to decrease the number of people using drugs and the amount of crimes that were committed. Since this declaration, incarceration rates in the U.S. have gone up by 500%, even though the amount of crime happening has gone down. One of the reasons why I feel our rates have risen, is because sometimes, we put people in jail when they don’t need to be there in the first place.
The reason I believe that eliminating mandatory minimum sentences is something that needs to be done is because it is necessary in some cases to let people who are incarcerated or soon to be incarcerated to get out of jail before they were sentenced to get out. Sometimes mandatory sentences target people unfairly like for example minorities or younger individuals. According to Chief Editor African Americans pertaining to drug use suffer more than white Americans do and it is causing unjust between the two races. There was also a case of a woman named Tina who set a building on fire by accident, killing two young boys when she was a young girl and was reprimanded for it and was tried as an adult and sentenced to life, even though she suffered
Only 18.3% (337,882) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug” (p. 23). Therefore, the individuals who are likely to enter the already overcrowded prisons may be users and the actual not distributors themselves. Thus, prison space that is intended to be reserved for murders and sexual predators is instead being occupied by substance
isn’t the only thing people believe needs to change; the reasons for arrests have been criticized by many. America incarcerates more citizens for drug related crimes than any other place in the world. Of the roughly 200,000 in federal prison, 52% are being held for drug crimes and only 8% are for violent crimes, such as: murder, assault, and robbery (Waldman, 2013). Many believe that the “War on Drugs” must become less aggressive because of its large contribution to the prison population. The distribution of prisoners by race has also raised concern among Americans.
