Debate Over Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws

Against Mandatory Sentencing Debate
A mandatory sentence is one where judicial discretion is limited by law; those convicted of certain
crimes must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. The most famous
example of mandatory sentencing is the 'three strikes and you're out' policy adopted first in
California in 1994, and now more widespread in the USA. "Three strikes" laws require life
imprisonment for a third criminal conviction, but other forms of mandatory sentencing are now
being discussed and implemented in various countries. The British Home Secretary Michael Howard
implemented a three strike policy in Britain in the mid 1990s, implementing a mandatory minimum
three year sentence for a third conviction of burglary. Australia's Northern Territory ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
More than two decades of experience in the United States have proven that the substantial costs of
incarcerating drug offenders would be better used "to fund drug treatment and harm reduction
programs, alternatives to incarceration, employment opportunities and human services." U.S.
Criminal Lawyers Warn Against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Schemes. (2010, August 16).
Targeted News Service, page 1. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID:
2112542531 mandatory sentencing removes the possibility of judicial discretion: the punishment
should fit the crime. Each case differs enormously in the details of the crime and the circumstances
of the convicted defendant, which include the risk of their reoffending and the possibilities of
rehabilitation. Judges must have the power to weigh all these complicated factors carefully in
determing a just sentence. The annual increase in growth was projected at 14%, which places an
enormous strain on already overcrowded prisons. In addition, most states will find it difficult, at the
least, to pick up the slack for increased costs, as the burden of "New Federalism" falls upon them.
The study found that the propensity of states to "get tough on crime" has contributed to the growth
of the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Research Paper
Mandatory minimum sentencing for illegal drug laws is not something that should be used. I do not
agree with it. There are many examples of people who have little or no criminal record at all who
are being punished for years at a time for something that did not bring harm to someone else. The
longer someone is in prison the money we have to pay for them being there. " It costs anywhere
between $20,000 and $40,000 per year to house inmates in federal and state correctional facilities."
(Hirby) According to statistics if it really cost about $20,000 a year to house an inmate and we give
them a minimum 5 year sentencing that comes out to $100,000. That is more money in five years to
spend on them while they practically do nothing. Just think,

The Expansion Of Mandatory Sentencing Penalties For...
Introduction
The expansion of mandatory sentencing penalties for federal crimes (especially non–violent drug
crimes), which have helped catalyze the increase in the prison population, is an aspect of the
criminal justice system that must be reformed. Public officials on both sides of the political
spectrum support amending federal mandatory sentencing laws and in July of 2013 Congressman
Richard Durbin (D–IL) introduced The Smarter Sentencing Act of 2014. This legislation would
lessen mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes from five, ten, and twenty year mandatory
minimums to two, five, and ten years respectively, effectually reducing prison costs and populations.
It would also make the Fairness in Sentencing Act of 2010, which ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The consequences of mass incarceration include severe overcrowding, worsened health and safety
conditions in prisons, expanded and more powerful correctional administrations, mass prison
privatization, and the institutionalization of a highly racialized criminal justice system that has
manifested itself in poor, minority predominated neighborhoods.
Mandatory minimums for controlled substances were first implemented in the 1980s as a
countermeasure for the hysteria that surrounded drugs in the era ("A Brief History," 2014). It was
believed that stiff penalties would discourage people from using drugs and enhance public safety
("A Brief History," 2014). However, that theory has failed and instead of less illegal drug activity,
there are more people incarcerated. Over half of federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there on
drug charges, a percentage that has risen 116 percent since 1970 (Miles, 2014). Mass incarceration is
an ever growing issue in the United States and is the result of policies that support the large scale
use of imprisonment on a sustained basis for social, political or economic purposes that have little to
do with law enforcement. Drug policies stemming from the War on Drugs are to blame and more
specifically, the mandatory minimum sentencing mandates on petty drug charges which have
imprisoned millions of non–violent offenders in the last three decades. Since this declaration

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Guidelines
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. Sentencing guidelines are just
that, guidelines to follow we a sentencing of an individual is taking place. "At the national level this
effort led to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which established a set of guidelines to structure
the sentencing process: The guidelines contain a Sentencing Table with 43 offense levels on the
vertical axis and six categories of criminal history on the horizontal axis. Offenders in criminal
history category 1 would likely have little or no criminal record, while those in category 6 would
likely have extensive criminal histories" ( Carp, Manning & Stidham, 2014) The guideline is to
make sure that people with no criminal background vs a convicted felon get different sentencing
based on their criminal past. Also, for one to understand that if you do the crime you will do the
time. These guidelines are supposed to maintain order in the sentencing within the court. This also
helps the sentencing because the judge is given a guideline to follow. So no one party can say "oh
the judge did not like me and threw the book at me", no he or she just was doing their job.
Mandatory minimum

Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Sentencing
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported 6.7 million people were supervised by adult correctional
systems in the United States at year end 2015. President Obama has conveyed tax payer pay $80
billion dollars to house incarcerate individuals yearly. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 limited
federal judge sentencing discretions. In 1980 the USA had 500k people incarcerated, the population
of prisoners has more than doubled the last two decades. The United States Mandatory sentencing
requires offenders receive a predetermined minimum sentencing for some offenses. Since the
implementation of mandatory sentencing, prison populations have risen sharply with sky rocking
costs. On certain offenses, Federal judges no longer have discretion on the sentence length.
Mandatory sentencing laws have shifted the power of punishment to the prosecutor as they have the
discretion of charges brought against offenders. According to Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy in
their article "Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017," the United State criminal justice leads the
world in the percentage of its citizens incarcerated. Mandatory minimum sentencing has led to large
prison populations, skyrocketing costs and social family challenges.
Mandatory sentencing has been a big driver in the large population of incarcerated individuals in the
United States. District attorneys are more aggressive in how they file charges against the arrestee.
While the country has seen a decline in crime, new

The War On Drugs And Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws
Out of Order Why are so many violent criminals walking free while so many non–violent offenders
are locked up? Although various aspects have fueled this inequity of justice, the factors that have
contributed the most to this development are, undoubtedly, the War on Drugs and mandatory
minimum sentencing laws which have led to punishment disproportionate to the offense. 59% of
rape cases and 36.2% of murder cases in the United States are never solved. In 2011, less than half
of all violent crimes committed found any resolution. This dilemma poses the question, why are so
many violent criminals walking free while so many non–violent offenders are locked up? Although
it is not responsible for all of the justice system's failures, the War on Drugs has been a key factor in
exemplifying these failures since 1971. For instance, New York City can be used as the perfect
example of just one city in the U.S., representative of so many others, which distinctly illustrates
this particular issue. Michael Bloomberg was the mayor of New York City from January 1, 2002
until December 31, 2013. In that time, police spent over one million man hours working 440,000
arrests for marijuana possession alone. This is a lot of police time and resources spent on busting
parties instead of tracking down violent criminals. However, this goes beyond any one city or state.
Nationwide, the U.S. would save 41.3 billion dollars every year by ending the War on Drugs. This
includes tens of millions of man

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing On Violent Crimes Essay
J'son West
Nov. 12. 2016
CJ 202 Canon Mandatory Minimum Sentencing on Violent Crimes
Crime in America is growing at a substantial rate and repeat offenders are playing a huge roll in this
growth. Mandatory minimum sentences, first established in Connecticut in 1969 and expanded
throughout the 1980s and 1990s, exemplify a shift in public policy to impose a specific amount of
imprisonment based on the crime committed and the defendant's criminal history, and away from
other individual offender characteristics and circumstances. A mandatory minimum sentence
requires a judge to impose a statutorily fixed sentence on individual offenders convicted of certain
crimes, regardless other mitigating factors. This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of
mandatory minimum sentences and why I believe it would be highly effective if put into place for
convicted violent offenders. There has been much debate over this topic in the United States, such as
in California's "Three Strikes Law and other similar state mandated laws. I will discuss how
mandatory sentences for violent crimes will increase deterrence. That, in hopes will lower crime
significantly, which continues to be increasing problem in our country. I will argue that mandatory
sentencing can be designed to avoid injustices. A substantial number of offenders who commit
violent crimes often receive lighter sentences for various reasons, whether it be because they have a
"non–violent" past or they receive an early

Mandatory Minimums : The United States Sentencing Commission
The average cost of keeping a single prisoner incarcerated in federal prison for a year is
approximately $30,619.85 (Prisons Bureau, and Department of Justice). Multiply that number by the
approximate 2,217,000 prisoners currently incarcerated and the cost of long sentences required by
mandatory minimums starts to add up (Federal Bureau of Prisons).
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).
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 minimums, nevertheless, there are some significant
problems associated with standardizing sentences. Many people support the idea that offenders of
the same crime should receive the same sentence, however, this idea disregards the individuality and
complexity of each criminal case; while the same crime may have been

Mandatory Sentencing Essay
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 ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Prosecutors operate without accountability and fail to punish high–level dealers and this does not
eliminate sentencing disparities. Furthermore, mandatory sentences are responsible for sending
many women and people of color to prison. Also, it was thought that harsher, mandatory sentences
would serve as a greater deterrent, making it less likely that offenders would re–offend.
In addition to overcrowded prisons and sentencing disparities, I read an article that involves the state
of Oregon's prisons. It states that prosecutors were getting more and more cases and sending the
lower level offenders to prison as well as those with nonviolent criminal histories. Many of those
offenders were eligible for probation, but were not getting that option. In 1994–1998, the number of
cases that were charged with lower level offenses were sentenced to prison and those sentences were
nearly doubled (Barker 2006.) This is what caused Oregon's prison population to increase over time.
Although some of the prison's population growth was not due to Measure 11's mandatory penalties.
As stated in the article, "According to the authors' RAND report submitted to the U.S. Department
of Justice, by the late 1990s, Measure–11eligible and alternate cases made up about one–third of the
Oregon's total prison population (Oregon's Office of Economic Analysis in Merritt et al., 2003:90)."
(Barker 2006) The author also states that, after the Measure 11

Mandatory Sentencing In Australia
Mandatory sentencing has operated as a controversial legal principle within Australia since its
introduction in 1992. The sentencing principle has encountered issues such as the restriction it
imposes upon judicial discretion due to its infringement upon separation of powers and the question
of its financial sustainability. These issues compel an in–depth evaluation surrounding the
effectiveness of the law and its social value while considering a range of reforms to improve the
identified issues.
Mandatory sentencing refers to the legislative implementation of a fixed minimum sentence for all
commissions of a specific criminal offence (Roche, 1999). The laws surrounding mandatory
sentencing require a court to impose a minimum term of imprisonment ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
By restricting judicial discretion, courts are prevented from considering a more suitable alternative
to imprisonment when relevant as the principle requires mandatory incarceration. According to the
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 'as of 30 June 2000 the imprisonment rate in the Northern Territory
was 458.1 per 100,000... compared to a national imprisonment rate of 147.7 per 100,000.' This
increased rate of imprisonment in jurisdictions such as the northern territory, where mandatory
sentencing laws are seen to operate at their harshest, provides evidence of the direct link between
the mandatory sentencing principle and the rate of imprisonment. The increased rate of
imprisonment puts strain on the tax payer funds that financially support the incarceration of
offenders. Cases involving mandatory sentences see a significant reduction in guilty pleas as there is
no possibility for the plea to reduce the offenders sentence (Law Council, 2017). These cases
consequently spend more time in court. Judges also tend not to grant bail because of the increased
incentive to flee. This is due to the offender generally already knowing their sentence before the
trial. These factors significantly increase the cost of administration of justice. The Australian
Institute of Criminology stated that the 'Net operating expenditure of corrective services costs
approximately $3.1 billion which was an increase of 4.8

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Essay
Drugs are a serious problem in today's world; they are becoming more accessible and increasingly
affordable to everyone, including teenagers, who seem to be especially vulnerable to falling into this
endless pit of doom. In order to reduce drug offense rates, there need to be firm laws that dictate the
consequences for major offenses. Mandatory minimum sentences effectively fulfill this, by instilling
fear into those who contemplate abusing or selling drugs, and they make sure drug offenders are
held accountable for their actions by punishing more reprehensible crimes and decreasing bias in the
court setting.
One of the main reasons the government should force judges to impose mandatory minimum
sentences is that they help discourage people from committing major drug offenses. The United
States, for example, experienced a drop in crime when many of the mandatory sentencing laws were
put into place in the 1980s. [ Text ]. The only thing that is more important in the drug war than
stopping existing drug – related ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mandatory minimum sentences are useful in fighting the war on drugs, as they prevent prejudice in
the courtroom. According to Keep Minimum Sentencing, to Discourage Criminals, one prosecutor
witnessed a judge say, "I know you lied in your testimony, but I understand why you believed you
had to do it."[Text ] Lots of judges put in their personal opinions when deciding the sentence for a
criminal, and this ends up being unjust, as it means a great deal of criminals won't have to face all
the consequences to their actions. It is not uncommon that a judge feels sympathy towards a
defendant and decides to give him/her a less hefty sentence. Incorporating mandatory minimum
sentences into the justice system puts a stop to this. A criminal has to reap what he sows and cannot
evade the ramifications of his actions because of a judge's bias or

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Is Cruel And Unusual Punishment
Introduction
The mandatory sentence of two years' imprisonment is unconstitutional because it is "cruel and
unusual punishment" which infringes upon the accused's right not to be subjected to such treatment.
Firstly, it is determined that the mandatory minimum sentence in this case is grossly
disproportionate to the accused's circumstances and would be reasonably foreseeable that the
provision would have the same overreaching effect on other offenders. Secondly, the provision in
question in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not saved by section 1 of the Charter as it
has failed the prescribed Oakes test. The test gives weight to the law's objective in comparison to the
means of achieving it, which in this case, impaired too heavily on the right of the accused.
Mandatory minimum sentencing is "cruel and unusual punishment"
The constitutional right in question reads from section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms which states, "everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual
treatment or punishment". In order to begin considering the legality of the mandatory minimum
sentence stated in Section 5(3)(a)(ii)(A) of the CDSA, the court must first consider the definition of
"cruel and unusual punishment" and apply the Oakes test to determine if the provision can be saved.
The meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment" as defined in R v Smith, is when it is too severe or
excessive for the specific crime or where there are specific

Essay about Negative Consequences of Mandatory Sentencing
Negative Consequences of Mandatory Sentencing
In recent years several mandatory sentencing laws have been put into motion. The original goals of
the mandatory sentencing laws were to stop repeat offenders and to exhibit a "get tough attitude" on
crime. These laws have not been working as intended, instead mandatory sentencing has led to some
unfortunate consequences. Some of these consequences are overcrowding in prisons and less prison
based rehabilitation. Mandatory sentencing laws do not narrowly target major drug traffickers.
Today there are 100 separate federal mandatory minimums located in 60 different criminal statues.
An example of mandatory sentencing is New York's Rockefeller laws which order terms extending
from 15 years ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mandatory minimums are resulting in a losing war on drugs and over crowding in the prison system.
As of 1999 almost 1.8 million Americans are incarcerated. Seven times as many women since 1980
are incarcerated largely due to new mandatory sentences. (Cose) This means that thousands of
children will be without mothers, and put into the system. America has reverted to locking up their
problems. Overcrowding is not only a problem for the Department of Corrections (DOC) but also
for the inmates. Overcrowding means less space and more violence between inmates. Overcrowded
prisons also means overcrowded county jails, where state offenders will be held. Prisoners often
complain of unbearably high noise levels, inadequate exercise and poor ventilation. This 1.8 million
figure gave the "Land of the Free" the second highest confinement rate in the world, right behind
Russia (Levitt). The criminal justice system needs to find another way to fight crime.
Mandatory sentencing laws state that a mandatory sentence must be imposed regardless of a
person's role in the crime or other mitigating factors. Prosecutors, not judges, have the discretion to
decide what charge to bring; whether to accept or deny a plea bargain. Mandatory sentencing is
defined as: a sentence determined by statutes and requiring that a certain penalty be

Mandatory Sentencing: A Case Study
There have been numerous legislative changes put through that have affected the lengths of
sentences being handed down to convicts. Some states have already made these changes while
others are considering doing the same. For example, in Massachusetts, the State House is examining
the possibility of putting an end to mandatory sentencing, which has been in effect for decades and
takes away discretion from judges when deciding on sentencing. One particular sticking point
involves the War on Drugs. Opponents say that mandatory minimum requirements have done little
or nothing to reduce crime, the effect on communities, or the costs involved with charging offenders
(Massachusetts lawmakers, 2015). Other states have already taken steps to make changes, ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As mentioned earlier, the three strikes law in California has led to ridiculously harsh punishment for
relatively minor offenses, simply because the offender has a history of breaking the law. Truth in
sentencing laws seem to be geared more toward ensuring funding of the prison system than ensuring
the proper sentence is given in relation to the severity of the crime committed. Though they don't
seem to contribute to the overcrowding of prisons very much on their own, it could certainly be
argued that they play at least a minor role in this

Should Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Be Legal?
Issue Statement
"Like the ancient tension between fixed and indeterminate sentencing, there's an ancient debate
about judicial discretion in sentencing." Proponents argue that mandatory minimum sentencing can
place a significant hardship on correctional budgets while at the same time, threatening an increase
of an inmate's claim that their rights pursuant to the Eighth Amendment protection of cruel and
unusual punishment have been violated. Opponents of fixed sentencing tend to posit that mandatory
(determinate) sentencing can act as a deterrent, which can equate to a reduction in overall crime
rates.
At what point does proportionality become relevant to issuing prison sentences? In Harmelin v.
Michigan , the Court held that it was ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Repeat offenders have a tendency to revert to a life of crime when they are denied gainful
employment due to their conviction(s). Harsher prison sentences can also affect the inmate's
exposure to negative habits from other prisoners, which compounds the hope of rehabilitation in
addition to the reduction of recidivism. While there is the inherent need to give rise to rehabilitating
offenders and reducing their susceptibility to commit future offenses, the judicial system must be
cognizant of the offender's rights pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. When judges exert discretion
during the sentencing phase outside of what would occur during a jury trial, the factors considered
must be those proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In delving further into the debate between the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of mandatory
sentencing, it is relevant to scrutinize the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
There is concern "that the Guidelines did not allow sufficient judicial discretion." Congress in turn
argued that the Guidelines were created to alleviate the disproportionate sentences created by
judicial discretion.
Current Policy
The United States Sentencing Commission [Commission] was responsible for developing a set of
guidelines stemming from the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 [Act], with the intent of punishing
those who

Arguments Against Mandatory Sentencing
Mandatory minimum sentencing is the lowest amount a judge can impose for sentencing the
defendant to which has been predetermined for specific types of crime. This was a decision made by
congress in 1984 which removes the courts discretion during the sentencing of a guilty defendant.
The purpose of which was to have uniform sentencing for similar crimes as well as a deterrent to
reduce criminal behavior (Bernick & Larkin, 2014).
Sentencing guidelines establishes a set of guidelines that structure the sentencing process. The
guidelines are at the federal level as well as the state level. The majority of the states have their own
sentencing guidelines. These requirements brought about the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 which
judges must ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The whole point of having the judicial system is to have equality for all in order to harbor an
environment of harmony and faith by the public we are serving. I do not believe that having
mandatory sentencing will reduce crime on its own. However, I do believe that everyone should
know what they can expect for punishment when they are guilty of a crime. Let's assume
committing a crime in one state typically has a sentence of 1 year in prison. What if it were 5 years
in another state for the same crime? This may in fact only increase that crime occurrence in the state
where the punishment would be less. This would cause a concentration of certain crimes in areas
which would become uninhabitable and impossible to control. I also believe to be effective, we
would need to allow judges the ability to use their discretion in cases where they may need to
deviate from the minimum requirements depending on mitigating circumstances. This will help keep
the guidelines from being too intricate and confusing for everyone to understand. In keeping with
the spirit of checks and balances, if this is abused then the judge could be facing discipline. Keeping
this in mind, we should have mandatory minimum sentencing as a deterrent while allowing judges
the ability to make changes if they feel they are absolutely needed. This will allow the judicial
system to be effective and keep moving

Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Mandatory minimum sentencing is when a judge sets down a fixed minimal term in prison for
people convicted of certain crimes, regardless of the role that was played in the crime (Levinthal,
2012). It is up to the judge to rule on what the sentence should be based on the crime. There are
three key facts that the judge take into account for sentencing, the type of drug, the weight of the
drug, and the number of prior convictions that a person has prior to being caught for the present
offense. The arguments for the mandatory minimum sentence is that this is a great way to ensure
that a person will spend time in jail for their role in the drug crime. Another argument for the
mandatory minimum sentence is to send a message to others who are

The Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws
The establishment of mandatory minimum sentencing laws has been a policy blunder since their
proliferation in the 1980s. Mandatory minimum laws are negatively affecting the U.S, economically
and socially. These laws effectively strip judges of their ability to adjudicate a fair punishment by
setting a minimum sentence and handing their discretion over to prosecutors. A number of
individuals and their families have been negatively affected by mandatory minimum penalties,
however, there are others indirectly affected by these policies. The U.S. taxpayer has to foot the bill
for these inmates, all while knowing that prison recidivism rates are tremendously high. These laws
are contributing to the over–federalization of crimes by interfering with the state criminal justice
system. The abolishment or reform of the federal mandatory minimums is needed to end the social
and economic damage these laws have caused. A majority of laws containing mandatory minimums
like the Anti–Drug Abuse Act and Major Frauds Act were passed in the 1980s, along with the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 that established the United States Sentencing Commission. The
USSC's main job is to create sentencing policies and guidelines for the federal courts. A 2011 report
to Congress regarding mandatory minimum penalties states "In fiscal year 2010, 27.2 percent of all
cases (19,896 of 73,239 cases) involved a conviction of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum
penalty." (Sarris 120). This is stripping away

Essay on Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
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. The history of
Mandatory Minimum sentencing laws date back to the founding of this country, the idea of swift
and certain punishment has always been popular among the public ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This can lead to corrupt convictions due to coerce guilty pleas to lesser offenses. This basically
gives too much power to prosecutors who use the leverage of mandatory minimum sentences as a
bargaining tool. This can be done through false testimonies from a defendant who would probably
be going to prison anyway but will lie for a lesser sentence (Batey, 2002). As stated by Batey
"Another major reason why mandatory minimum sentencing has failed is that it has given America's
prosecutors too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of
persons to fearful to insist on the trails that might have acquitted them" (Batey, 2002. P. 2). As a
result of mandatory minimum sentencing we now have overcrowding of our prisons system with
minor criminals some of whom may be innocent. This in turn has made racial and ethnic bias
perceptions due to the majority of offenders being incarcerated are of African American heritage or
of Hispanic heritage. According to Sterngold, 2008 "Most of California's prisons house more than
170,000 inmates, nearly twice the number it was designed to safely hold. Almost all of its facilities
are bursting at the seams: More than 16,000 prisoners sleep on what are known as "ugly beds"–extra
bucks stuffed into cells, gyms, dayrooms, and hallways. The effects of overcrowding–electrical

Mandatory Sentencing Essay
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Guidelines: The mandatory minimum sentencing is about a fixed
ruling of a crime that a judge is expected to deliver. Congress has enacted mandatory minimum
sentencing laws. It was to impose the mandatory sentencing an offender would receive for crimes
that were committed. The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to
hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are
committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on
how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes
committed on society, such as violent, drug–related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases
where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat offender then it should be left up the presiding
judge to serve out justice. People who commit low level crimes should be punished but not to the
extent of going to prison for a long period of time. Congress has enacted these guidelines so that the
criminal justice system would not be burden with smaller crimes or be overwhelmed. Lengthy
sentencing hearings seldom are necessary, the disputes about sentencing elements must be resolved
with sensitivity concern and carefulness. A dispute exists about any factor important to the
sentencing determination then a judge will use his discretion to hand down equal and fair
judgement. Legislator statements during debates on mandatory

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws For Drug Offences
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.
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

Mandatory sentencing is a set penalty approved by parliament for committing a criminal offence.
This sentence can involve any type of consequence, it normally refers to prison sentencing. All
Australian states and territories have mandatory sentences, most of them introduced life
imprisonment for murder after the death penalty's abolition but, over time, most jurisdictions
adjusted the minimum penalty. (Roche, 1999)
Pros:
Common belief of the Australian public is, with a minimum mandatory sentence for specified crime,
likely offenders are more likely to consider consequences before committing for the fear of being
imprisoned. Short prison sentences are less likely to deter illegal activities such as selling drugs,
vandalism and theft, so with a minimum enforced sentence according to the type of crime, there is
less chance of future offenders. Those who support mandatory minimum sentencing express that
without this type of fairness scheme, chances of unfair sentencing on guilty offenders will
commonly happen. With an equal number of years of imprisonment, justice will be served to every
offender with the same punishment without bias.
Cons:
Although, there is no evidence that suggests mandatory sentencing is effective at decreasing crime
rate but ample evidence of its long–term felonious results. The US and other jurisdictions are an
example of the ineffective results of this regime, choosing to decrease the use mandatory sentencing
regimes because they don't work.

Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Introduction The criminal justice system in the United States is not a single system, but rather a
combined network of systems, reconfigured as one. This means that communication and
transparency is even more important than it might be within a more one dimensional system.
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require binding prison terms for people convicted of certain
federal and state crimes. 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 offenses. One question being considered
within the legal community now is, while new crimes are being recognized as they are committed,
should mandatory minimums really be "mandatory", or should they be "suggested", and serve more
as a guideline, while the actual sentence is left to the discretion of the court? Not all crime is created
equal and motive, or lack thereof, are factors that should play a role in the court's determination of
an appropriate sentence, should one in fact be imposed Indeterminate sentencing provided judges
with maximum flexibility and judicial discretion. Several problems started to arise. Judg¬es often
were trained differently of how to use and when to use their discretion. Problems with discretion
was more apparent because no sentencing system existed to guide judges, and there was little or no
appellate review of sentencing. With these problems occurring with indeterminate sentencing caused
a major push to revamp sentencing reform and the enactment of sentencing guide¬lines in many
states Mandatory minimums would then be in effect enforcing a longer prison term for repeat
offenders. When President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, right after the initial peak of illegal
drug use in 1979. Although, de¬spite the decline, President Reagan began to launch his own
personal campaign to get "tough on crime" and end drug use, which were put in place to finish what
President Nixon. Results of this effect caused urgency for legislative reforms for prison sentencing
as well as enactments of mandatory minimums for several offenses. The crux of sentencing reform
was set in motion

Persuasive Essay On Mandatory Sentencing
How many of you had that painful experience of staring at the clock and wishing for the 1 hour
period to end. Well, Imagine if you were walking down the street and saw a car with its window
down, and there was 90 cents on the seat of the car; lets say you took it. According to mandatory
sentencing in Northern Territory you would be sentenced to 90 days in prison. 90 days for 90 cents
is that justice. Don't get me wrong 90 days is a long time, thats 2160 periods of english, I know its
insane.
Mandatory sentencing does not work as it fails to get tough on crime. Firstly, I'm going to tell you
the unfair nature of mandatory sentencing, secondly, I'll discuss its ineffectiveness and finally i'll
explain how it is unjust towards indigenous groups
Punishment should fit the crime. Sentencing used to be done by judges or juries, but with mandatory
minimum sentences, judges have to follow the regulations depending on the verdict. According to
Armstrong legal, a commercial attorney website states that the maximum imprisonment for being
prosecuted for 1 gram of cocaine is $220,000 or 15 years in jail. How would throwing someone for
so long in a jail is fair when they haven't even hurt anyone? According to Katherine Gregory a
renowned journalist who wrote an article on the ABC website stating that a Twenty year old
intoxicated man will serve less than six years in jail for killing a 54 year old man in 2015, because
of one punch laws. This is extreme neglect by the politicians who

Common crimes in the judicial system include drug offenses, firearm offenses, and sexual assault,
and the depending on the judge the repercussions could vary. To have unvaried penalties, mandatory
minimum sentencing laws were enacted. These laws help keep citizens protected, while criminals
are incarcerated. John Oliver, the host of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, talks about how
mandatory minimum sentencing increases the number of criminals incarcerated, and he believes the
length of their prison time is longer than it should be. He shows videos of criminals who were
convicted under the mandatory minimum law with drug crimes. These videos explain how this law
affected each of these individuals and their families, and some were sentenced to life in prison for
their crimes. Oliver states, "Mandatory minimum sentencing laws designed to stop [drug crimes]
have done way more harm than good (Oliver)." Although Oliver believes mandatory minimums are
damagining, it was an illegal action that put those criminals in jail. Without breaking the law, they
would have a free life. Removing mandatory minimum sentencing on drug offenses from the
judicial system is unethical. It is necessary in the judicial system, because the safety of citizens is in
the hands of judges. With drug crimes that are reoccurring in the court system, mandatory
minimums enable judges to give sentences to criminals without sympathy interfering with the
penalty deserved. Along with this, it keeps criminals off

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Research Paper
Defining Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Sentencing Guidelines In 1984, President Ronald
Regan signed into law the Sentencing Reform Act, that Congress enacted as part of the
Comprehensive Crime Act. The Sentencing Reform act was created to help make the criminal
justice system more accountable to the public with a system that contained structures or guides to
aid in the use of judicial discretion. In addition, the Sentencing Reform Act created a bi–partisan
group of people that were chosen for their expertise in the field of criminal justice, that were
appointed by the President, were confirmed by the senate, and were directed to determine
appropriate type(s) and lengths of sentences...they were to become the United States Sentencing
Commission.

Essay On Mandatory Sentencing
The concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first
introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two
to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory
sentences came back with the passage of the Anti–Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope
and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug
related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of
mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge's ability to give out a
sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Although both are committing basically the same crime, one could serve years in prison while the
other serves mere months (Larkin 2) The first scholarly, peer–reviewed source I read is called Too
Severe?: A Defense of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (and a Critique of Federal Mandatory
Minimums) ,by Paul G. Cassell. It was published by the Stanford Law Review, and in it Cassell
defends federal sentencing guidelines and believes some aspects of mandatory sentencing are
necessary, but criticizes the federal mandatory minimums as they stand now. It has a lot of
information on the effects of mandatory minimum sentencing that should prove to be useful for this
research assignment. The other source I've read so far is web article titled Reconsidering Mandatory
Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms, by Paul Larkin. Although it
is not a peer–reviewed, scholarly article, it does provide a lot of insight into both the problems and
benefits of mandatory minimum sentencing, including the unduly harsh minimums, how the "move
up the chain" method for law enforcement isn't working, and how they eliminate the dishonesty in
sentencing that characterized the 20th century. I will obtain different peer reviewed sources to
examine and interpret both facts and opinions provided by the authors. I will also use some web
articles and books to gather more information on mandatory minimum sentencing and its effects on
society. With this in mind, I will

Unnecessary rules and regulations is what have become of the required minimum sentencing laws.
Laws that are put intact so that Congress might have control over what happens with a convict in the
judiciary court system. It is essential that these laws are dealt away with; they are creating greater
harms than benefits for the public. They are costing the American people from their money,
abstinence from their families, and to some extent even rights as U.S. citizens. The United States
Congress should repeal mandatory minimum sentencing laws. "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

Should The Minimum Sentencing Be Mandatory?
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. 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

Mandatory Sentencing For Minor Drug Offences
Since 1971, the United States has been on a war against drugs. Yet four decades and one trillion
dollars later, we are still fighting this war (Branson). All that we have to show for this war is drugs
running rampant and tons of citizens incarcerated. Mandatory sentencing for minor drug offences
should be overturned due to overflowing prisons, damaging families, and the scare tactic it was
created to be has failed. Due to mandatory sentencing for minor drug offences, the American prison
system is overflowing with inmates. According to E. Ann Carson, a Statistician for the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, "Fifty percent (95,800) of sentenced inmates in federal prison on September 30,
2014 (the most recent date for which federal offense data are available) were serving time for drug
offenses. In comparison to the 53% in state prisons, violent offenders represented 7% of the federal
prison population (14,000 prisoners)" (Carson 17). Half of the United States' prison population in
both state and federal is incarcerated for drug related crimes. This is huge compared to the seven
percent of the population in federal prisons for violent crimes. The United States Federal Registrar
says "The average annual cost to confine an inmate in a Community Corrections Center for Fiscal
Year 2011 was $26,163" (Prisons Bureau). This cost falls to the tax payers. It would cost taxpayers
over two and a half billion dollars to house all the people guilty of minor drug offences in federal
prison

Mandatory sentencing is another form of structured sentencing, deserves special mention.
Mandatory sentencing is just what its name implies: A structured sentencing scheme that man–dates
clearly enumerated punishments for specific offenses or for habitual offenders convicted of a series
of crimes. Mandatory sentencing, because it is truly mandatory, differs from presumptive
sentencing, which allows at least a limited amount of judicial discretion within ranges established by
published guidelines. The difference between indeterminate sentencing and mandatory sentencing is
that mandatory sentencing does not give a judge the option to adjust a sentence based on the facts of
the case and the defendants sentencing it allows a judge the discretion to manage the sentence based
on the facts that were provided to them. Mandatory sentencing was originally created through the
Boggs Act of 1951.Mandatory sentencing was basically created to make sure judges did not give out
light sentencing, based on them feeling sorry for the person that was accused.
2.
The act also addressed the issue of truth in sentencing, described as "a close correspondence
between the sentence imposed upon those sent to prison release." Under the old federal system, on
average, good time credits and parole reduced time served to about one third of the actual sentence.
The emphasis on truth in sentencing created, in effect, a sentencing environment of "what you get is
what you serve." Truth in sentencing has

Mandatory Sentencing For Non Violent Crime
As far as alternatives go, there are several things that need to be addressed to improve and fix this
overcrowded problem. There is no one reason for the overcrowding within the prison system and
one has factored in all reasons that can lead up to the cause of overcrowding in order to find a
solution to this tremendous issue.
Mandatory Sentencing
To begin, mandatory sentencing for non–violent and drug– related crimes should be eliminated. This
law was established to dispose of the drugs masters and to reduce the selling of drugs in
neighborhoods. However, this resulted in an adverse effect; with nonviolent drug and first time
offenders getting brutal sentences expanding the prison population. Non–violent crime should be
dealt with ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As agreed by Prisons: Problems and Prospects Prisons and the War on Drugs, "incarceration rates
for murderers, robbers, and burglars have remained steady over the years, but the number of drug
offenders who have been imprisoned has steadily escalated". The "war on drugs" has, for the most
part, added to prison overcrowding. However, it has particularly extended the degree of minorities
who are sent to prison. Further readings by Nathan James (2016), "mandatory minimum penalties
have contributed to the growing federal prison population". In addition, this report also added some
alternative to this development problem, "Even if Congress chooses not to repeal any mandatory
minimum sentences, policymakers could review current mandatory minimum penalties to ensure
that they are (1) not excessively severe, (2) narrowly tailored to apply only to those offenders who
warrant such punishment, and (3) applied consistently" (James, 2016). "(1) Today narcotics
offenders occupy 61% of the beds in federal prisons. (2) Meanwhile, 1 in 7 state facilities continues
to operate beyond capacity. (3) Ohio leads the pack with a stunning 182% of capacity" (Smolowe,
1994).
There are a number of issues that added to development in the prison system.
I. Mandatory Sentences
II. More offenders being arrested for non–violent crimes
III. Parole Practices
The most effective method to diminish prison overcrowding
I. Termination of

Should Mandatory Sentencing Be Mandatory?
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 when sentencing cases. 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. While
throughout history, there have always been some types ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Since the first mandatory minimums were created, the number of crimes carrying minimum
sentencing has now more than doubled (Bernick and Larkin). Mandatory minimums were created as
a way to establish a sense of similarity in how cases would be sentenced and were developed in
hopes of deterring possible criminals from committing any crimes. Those in favor of the minimum
sentencing claimed that the communities would be safer due to the new sentencing locking criminals
behind bars (Henderson, Wade). Mandatory minimums were created as a restriction for judges, but
the ones paying the price for them are the convicted. Today, there is a wide variety of crimes that
carry a mandatory minimum sentence, with new minimums being added almost yearly. Today, the
United States has more people incarcerated than ever before. More than 2 million people in the
United States alone are in prison, three times the amount than before there were sentencing
guidelines and mandatory minimums (Bernick and Larkin). "The Federal Bureau of Prisons is
overcrowded, operating at nearly 40 percent over capacity and housing a large population of non–
violent drug offenders, at a significant cost to taxpayer" (Bernick and Larkin). Every year taxpayers
are paying to keep inmates incarcerated. The average cost to keep one inmate in prison for a year is
around $29,000. In state prisons alone, taxpayers spend over $50 billion dollars

Advantages Of Mandatory Sentencing
Commerce
Max Cridland
Mandatory Sentencing in New South Wales
Mandatory sentencing refers to those sentences which a judicial officer is required to impose no
matter what the circumstances of the offence. In other words, the judicial officer has no discretion to
impose a higher or lower sentence depending upon the nature of the crime. In the case of one punch
laws, the mandatory sentence is a minimum so a judicial officer is able to impose a higher sentence
if he or she thinks it's appropriate. For example, a person who king hits someone will automatically
get an eight–year mandatory minimum sentence. If someone else does the same thing one month
later in a different place and is heard by a different judge he will get that same mandatory minimum
sentence of eight years in prison and possibly longer if the judge thinks it's suitable.
The introduction of one–punch laws in NSW ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
That attacks were alcohol and drug fuelled, were unprovoked and ended in some very serious
injuries. The mandatory minimum sentencing for king–hit assaults involving drugs and/or alcohol
was introduced as an attempt to put an end to these assaults and punish those who commit them
evenly and fairly. This means that regardless of the situation, if you commit a one–punch assault
while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you will receive a minimum of eight years
imprisonment. The legislation was introduced as a measure to curb the alcohol–fuelled violence in
certain parts of Sydney and to deter others from violent outbursts that can kill. An example of this is
when Daniel Christie was very sadly knocked down by one punch in almost the same spot that
Daniel Kelly was assaulted in 2012. Both died of head injuries later on in a hospital and caused
public outcry against alcohol–fuelled violence. This legislation aims to stop this violence and
hopefully save many

The Effects Of Mandatory Sentencing On The United States...
The United States prison population has grown seven–fold over the past forty years, and many
Americans today tend to believe that the high levels of incarceration in our country stem from
factors such as racism, socioeconomic differences, and drugs. While these factors have contributed
to the incarceration rate present in our country today, I argue that the most important reason our
country has such a high incarceration rate is the policy changes that have occurred since the 1970s.
During this time, the United States has enacted policy changes that have produced an astounding
rise in the use of imprisonment for social control. These policy changes were enacted in order to
achieve greater consistency, certainty, and severity and include sentencing laws such as determinate
sentencing, truth–in–sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three strikes laws (National
Research Council 2014). Furthermore, I argue that mandatory sentencing has had the most
significant effect on the incarceration rate. The political turmoil and changing social climate of the
1960s contributed to the policies enacted in 1970s through the 1990s that significantly changed
America's criminal justice system. The political and social climate during the 1960s was tumultuous,
defined by events such as Woodstock, the assassinations of Martin Luther King, and John and
Bobby Kennedy, riots at the Democratic National Convention, and Vietnam War protests. At this
time in our nation's history, the World War II

No matter how many laws are put in place, there will always be crime that occurs in the world we
live in today. People should be punished for the crime they commit but sometimes the punishment is
very unpractical. Normally in average cases, you have a judge and a jury who go over your case and
find whether or not you are guilty of the crime. With mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws
now the power is in the prosecutor's hands and if they want you to be charged with the sentence
without a question, the judge has no choice but to place you in jail. These laws shift power from the
judges and juries to the prosecutors, almost always going in their favor. Certain crimes now have the
same punishment no matter who commits them and their circumstances are not put into account.
These laws are unfair because people are being sentenced to much time in prison for crimes that
should carry less of a sentence. According to a statement by the US Bureau of Justice statistics in
June 2000, "the average sentence for murder was 12.4 years, most only served 7.9 years." This is my
problem with the prison and court system, you get charged with more time for committing a crime
that is nowhere near as inhumane as murder. It is bad for someone to sell and supply drugs but, you
shouldn't spend a majority of your life behind bars. One problem in mandatory sentencing laws is,
they do not reduce crime as well as they are supposed to. One may argue that mandatory minimums
actually do

Mandatory Sentencing is a court decision where judicial discretion is limited by law. Typically a
crime in Australia has a maximum penalty but does not have a minimum, therefore the judge has to
take into account the minimum penalty and can then from there continue to add on to the minimum
penalty. For example in the late 1990's a very controversial decision was to made when a mandatory
sentence was introduced for repeat home burglary offenders in Western Australia. The NSW
government has recently introduced a Mandatory sentencing law as part of a plan to minimise
alcohol related violence and to deter others from the violence.
NSW and Australia in general have seen many alcohol related incidents recently and the NSW
government has decided to make a change. The NSW government has introduced a mandatory
sentencing law of a minimum of 8 years ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mandatory sentencing for 'king hits' or 'coward punches' has also been controversial. Many people
have debated for the legislation stating that the mandatory minimum sentence will deter many others
from committing the crime and cause people who are drinking to think more carefully about their
actions. People are also backing the new legislation as they think that the punishments should be
greater than they were previously. On the opposing sides of things people are arguing that this new
piece of legislation will not change anything, as they believe that when these crimes are committed,
they are in the spark of the moment and there is no real thought process as to what the consequences
could be. Another reason against the law is that it really will not bring justice to the families that are
affected by these 'coward punches'. The maximum sentence for the 'one punch law' is still lower
than manslaughter and most of the offenders receive sentences well below the

What is the expectation when someone commits a crime? Many would say that offenders require
strict punishment including harsh sentencing moreover that rehabilitation is without value. Two
conflicting views are being examined from Eugene H. Methvin, who is a supporter of mandatory
sentencing as well as 'three strikes' sentencing that can result in life sentences being mandatory for
repeat offenders even if they are non–violent crimes. On the other hand, is David Shichor, who
supports sentencing that is efficient and fair especially since harsh sentencing does not reduce crime.
Two works are reviewed, Eugene Methvin is his paper Mugged by Reality and David Shichor in his
Three Strikes as a Public Policy. Eugene Methvin presented ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Conversely, there may be significance in understanding the relatively small percentage of people
who continue to commit a crime even after they continue to be apprehended. Redefining criminal
acts and balancing them based on actual impact to society, may create a fairer and just system.
David Shichor's estimation best serves humanity where as Methvin creates targeted and singled out
groups while furthering the divide of

Current mandatory minimum sentencing laws are in dire need of reform. A mandatory minimum
sentence is a court decision where judicial discretion is limited by law. As a result, there are
irrevocable prison terms of a specific length for people convicted of particular federal and state
crimes. As of January 2014, more than 50 percent of inmates in federal prisons are serving time for
drug offenses, and more than 60 percent of people incarcerated are racial and ethnic minorities. The
use of safety valves and implementation of the Fair Sentencing Act are a few methods Congress
employed to combat racial disparity in prisons. Mandatory minimum sentencing harshly punishes
non–violent offenders, disproportionately affects minorities, and skews the balance of power
between judges and prosecutors. Throughout the majority of the 19th and 20th century, federal trial
judges had a great deal of unlimited sentencing discretion. Unrestrained discretion can lead to
sentencing disparities in particular cases, such as drug possession crimes. In 1952, the United States
Congress enacted the Boggs Act, one of the first instances of mandatory minimum sentencing.
Under the Boggs Act, the possession of marijuana, cocaine, or heroin carried a mandatory minimum
of two years with a maximum of five years in prison. Nevertheless, in 1970, the United States
Congress revoked the mandatory minimum sentencing for cannabis offenses. Later in 1986, the
Anti–Drug Abuse Act created new mandatory minimum

Debate Over Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Alison Reed

More from Alison Reed (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Debate Over Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws