Today I called the Illinois Representative Michael J. Madigan office and received his answering machine. I left him a message asking him to please consider passing bills for sentencing reform legislation, such as the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (SRCA), S.2123. I told him that I am a registered voter and it has come to my attention that the federal prison population has skyrocketed dramatically over the past 35 years and most of the people in the prisons are in for minimum drug sentences. I told him that while people are in prison they are losing income, job skills, and are typically unable to attend rehabilitation programs. All of these aspects make it extremely difficult for the people to obtain jobs or get on the right path once
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which were introduced about three decades or so ago, allow judges to issue a minimum prison sentence at the discretion of the prosecutor, who determines the charges that are placed against a defendant. These laws, as outlined by the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation (n.d), limit the power of the judges to make a judgment on the punishment that can be given to a defendant. The meaning being that mandatory minimums transfer the power to give sentences from the judges to the prosecutors, a scenario that is worsened by the fact that some prosecutors misuse this power. As such, mandatory minimum sentences should be repealed, particularly for the gun and drug-based offenses. Mandatory Minimum Sentence Laws Foster Uncontrolled Prosecutorial Discretion Evils
INTRODUCTION The United States incarcerates a greater percentage of the population than any country in the world (CBS, 2012). According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 2.3 million adults were incarcerated in federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013. There are an additional 820,000 people on parole and 3.8 million people on probation (Wagner & Rabuy, 2016) Jail and prison differ primarily in regards to the length of stay for inmates.
“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
When a non law abiding citizen commits a crime, we the people of the community wants to see some actions taken by the law enforcement officers. When the people see such action being taken and the drug and violence comes to a low, the people feel a little safer in the community in which they live in. However, if the police officer does their part and arrest these destruction law offenders, but the court system has a different approach in the crimes that are being committed in our neighborhoods, why ask the people to work along side with the law enforcement officers? The “get tough” approach on crime has pros and cons to mandatory and minimum sentencing.
Mandatory minimums have caused much debate and have become a cause of concern for many citizens. It has been “known for some time now that mandatory penalties will not produce just outcomes and will anyway likely be subverted.” (Frost, 2006, p.3) By doing so, many marginalized groups will be negatively affected by this practice. One group particularly affected by mandatory minimum sentencing is the Black community.
Jail sentencing is something that every American citizen struggles with in one way or another. Not all criminals are bad & not all criminals are good. Some of the good citizens make mistakes & get charged harshly for things that they don’t deserve, but sometimes the bad citizens the actual criminals are able to beat their cases & don’t get charged as bad as the good people. Jail sentencing can make citizens go through torture. Jail sentencing should be discontinued because it can make citizens go through torture.
So in a nut shell, every state has its own set of rules for the punishment of criminals called sentencing guidelines, which are sentencing policies prosecutors and judges use for people convicted of serious misdemeanors and felonies (Peak,2015). The crime and the criminal 's previous criminal history is considered when a judge hands down a sentence. People that oppose alternative sentencing argue that an individual 's circumstances are unique and should be considered during sentencing, otherwise there is a possibility of
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in Recent Legislation: Is it Effective? The Canadian government has been sending mixed messages regarding current punishment practices in this country. It has a strong commitment, as do the provinces, to using community-based corrections. At the same time, recent federal legislation and amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada are encouraging tougher penalties, most of which are mandatory prison time for gun-related offences.
Sentencing Sentencing occurs after a defendant has been convicted of a crime. During the sentencing process, the court issues a punishment that involves a fine, imprisonment, capital punishment, or some other penalty. In some states, juries may be entitled to determine a sentence. However, sentencing in most states and federal courts are issued by a judge. To fully understand the sentencing phase of criminal court proceedings, it is important to examine how sentencing affects the state and federal prison systems, learn the meanings of determinate and indeterminate sentencing, and understand the impact Proposition 57 has had on sentencing in California.
When a person is accused of a crime and found guilty, it’s the court’s job to make a verdict of their sentencing. At times those sentencings aren’t exactly the appropriate for the crime the person is being accused of or committed. I believe it’s only fair that regardless of race, ethnicity, illness etc. that everyone who breaks the law by committing a similar crime should receive the same sentencing time. For that to happen a reform must pass so that unfair sentencing can decrease and come to a stop.
Mandatory sentencing occurs when a crime is committed and a required sentence must be provided from the magistrate or judge. Normally, a required sentence sets a minimum sentence. If it deems it appropriate, a court can still impose a sentence that is longer than the maximum penalty and sometimes, it is also mandatory for a court to order that prison sentences be served one after the other (cumulatively), and not at the same time (concurrently). In Queensland serious repeat child sex offenders receive a mandatory sentencing of life imprisonment, this means if a child sex offender has previously been convicted and is caught again after their 1st sentence is over, they must receive a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. 1.2 Purpose
Introduction No study has yet calculated the cost of incarceration; nevertheless, lots of evaluation have been made on the cost of crime (McLaughlin, Pettus-Davis, Brown, Veeh & Renn, 2016). In the USA, one out of three adults holds a criminal record. The huge and continuous rate of incarceration deprives individuals of freedom and costs a lot to taxpayers who pay large amounts of money, federal, and state budgets (Abrams, 2013). But, according to Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, people do not just execute crime; they weigh and analyze the pros and cons of the crime, and then, are convinced that they can exceed the consequences of their acts. Therefore, it may be fair to think that they should be held responsible since they base their actions on choice theory (Hall, 2012).
Monetary penalties have so many disadvantages that they should not be used to a greater extent in the criminal justice system. Thus some have gone as far to argue that they should be completely abolished. However Burch has said that this would not be possible so reform should be favoured instead. I will argue that updating their current use is essential in order to make the current system of fines more effective and more restricted. I will continue to discuss why fines are not effective, from their rational, to their effect on the offender to the way that they are set in practice.
The average person today would most likely accept the barbaric act of execution, as an ordinary part of judicial punishments. It’s approved because those given the sentence are “monsters”, and they’re the only one who suffers from the act. However, those who follow fall under that train of thought are both morally and logically wrong. All bias ideas aside you must take notice of the mass amounts of innocent people sentenced monstrous crimes rather pleading to changes out of fear, or simply being extremely lucky and have fallen under those treacherous circumstances. You could only imagine, the thousands of innocent civilians just like you, killed by our government.
