The document discusses the problem of prison overcrowding in the United States and proposes abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing as a solution. It notes that prisons are overcapacity, overcrowding increases inmate stress and violence, and mandatory minimums contribute to excessive sentencing and costs. Abolishing mandatory minimums would give judges discretion over sentencing to consider individual circumstances instead of mandatory minimum punishments. This could help reduce overcrowding, costs, and racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

1. Criminal Justice Policy Task ForceSamantha LoukCatherine-Melissa Fletcher Evelyn Denning Kate Johnson Jessi Bell

2. Problem

3. Overcrowding of PrisonsThere are around 2.5 million people incarcerated in the United States Most prisons and jails (federal, state and local) are running above recommended capacityThe Richmond jail is designed to house around 850 inmates. There are between 1,400 and 1,600 inmates incarcerated there currently

4. Effects of OvercrowdingHigher stress levels among inmatesHigher rates of assaults in overcrowded facilitiesHigher recidivism Rates among inmates housed inovercrowdedfacilities

5. CostThe United States spends around $214.5 billion dollars annually on correctionshttp://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/expgovtab.cfmThe United States spends about six times more on prisons than on education

6. Excessive SentencingWeldon AngelosSentenced to 55 yearsMorton BergerSentenced to 200 years

7. Solution

8. So, it seems that prisons in the United States are a real problem, how can you feasibly ‘fix’ all of these problems?We believe that by abolishing mandatory minimal sentencing, we can make a huge improvement in the problems that we have outlined. Which included overcrowding, costs, and excessive sentencing.

9. What is Minimal Sentencing? Minimal Sentencing is defined as… “A criminal sentence set by a legislature that establishes the minimum length of prison time for specified crimes and thus limits the amount of discretion a judge has when sentencing a defendant”.

10. Why is Mandatory Sentencing a Problem?It is a way to require judges to deliver fixed sentencing to those convicted of crimes, regardless of the details of the crime.It takes away judicial power to consider motivation, the offender’s role, and their chances of recidivismCertain crimes will receive certain punishments, with few exceptions.

11. How will abolishing minimal sentencing fix the problems you have outlined?

12. OvercrowdingMandatory sentencing puts more people in jail for a longer time.

13. CostsQuite simply, the more people that you put in jail the higher costs will be. $20,108

14. Excessive Sentencing“big” criminalsIt takes away the ability for a judge to look at an individual case and make a decision based on the facts of the case.

15. An Example…In the state of Connecticut, committing a class A, B, or C class felony with a gun in ones possession gets you an additional 5 years added to your sentence. Selling drugs to a minor is a minimum of two years, unless it is in the close proximity of a school, day care, or public housing facility in which it is 3 years.

16. Wait a second, won’t changing the sentencing laws make the US less tough on crime ?No, in short, we are not lessening the sentencing we are only putting the power to sentence back in the hands of the judicial branch.

17. Strengths/ Weakness

18. Strengths of abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing Ensures that there are no unnecessary harsh sentences. Does away with one-size-fit all approach to sentencing and assures that a sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offenderCongress no longer limits judicial discretion. Judges will be able to consider the facts of individual cases and impose sentences that are fit and just in the circumstances of that particular case.There will be less unwarranted racial disparity in sentencing. Mandatory sentencing disproportionally affect minorities. Minorities tend to be over represented in prisons.

19. Strengths continuedAllows for fair and effective sentencing and decreases over reliance on imprisonment. all crimes and offenders have different circumstances but mandatory minimum sentencing treats them all equally and this is unfair and unjust. Incarceration is an expensive investment with little return and great potential to be counterproductiveNonviolent offenders will have a chance to receive rehabilitation instead of lengthy incarceration sentences. If a first time offender or an aboriginal is sentenced to prison they become more entrenched in the criminal lifestyle and become more hardened criminals. Prosecutors will no longer be empowered to force defendants to assist them in their prosecutions. Under Mandatory minimum sentencing Prosecutors have the power to proceed, dismiss, or stay charges. By removing discretion from the judge in public proceedings conducted on the record in the courtroom, it shifts discretion to the prosecutor's office, off the record and behind closed doors. The lack of openness and accountability of charging and plea negotiation processes then undermines the integrity of the sentencing process.

20. Weaknesses of abolishing minimum sentencing We lose uniformity in sentencing. Abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing will increase disparity in sentencing. Two people who have committed the same crime under the same circumstances might receive very different sentences from different judges and this not only violates the offender but distorts justice.Court judgments may be too lenient and unjust. Judges might consider certain offences to not be too serious or might sympathize and decide to pardon first time offenders and this undermines equal treatment under the law. Abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing decreases general deterrence of crime. Severity of the sanctions ensures societies denunciation of serious crimes. Making sanctions immediate, certain, and severe sends a message to society that the crime will not be tolerated. Thus, mandatory minimum punishment is intended to deter members of society from committing crime and specific criminals from repeating their crimes without there is little deterrence.

21. Weaknesses continuedThere is evidence that people who are let off early from prison have a tendency to return. Offenders who initially are treated leniently for a crime might proceed to commit further heinous crimes. Officials who support the policy will be seen as being soft on crime. Elected officials will be reluctant to support the policy because they society will consider them as not being tough on enough on crime.

22. Feasibility of passing and enacting the solution.

23. Research/Background2.3 million people in prison in the United StatesUnited States holds 5% of worlds population, and 25% of the world’s jail population$68,000,000,000 spent annually on prisons50-70% of people let out of jail will return at some point in their livesNearly 60% of the people in state prisons serving time for a drug offense had no history of violence or of any significant previous selling activity.

24. Steps already in action towards a better future…Prison Rape Elimination Act (2003)Fair Sentencing Act (2010)National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2010National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2011

25. Stakeholders

26. Private PrisonsPrivate prisons receive funds from state governments per inmate per day. They also have an economic incentive to continue to increase prison population.

27. WackenhutNumber one in the corrections industryIn 2000, made $118/day/inmateExpanded services to include providing food to private and state prisons

28. Corrections Corporations of AmericaFY Q4 resultsTotal management revenue for the fourth quarter of 2010 increased 3.6% to $430.8 million from $415.8 million during the prior year period, primarily driven by a 4.3% increase in average daily inmate populations.“Additionally we are pleased our populations have remained strong, in excess of the 80,000 inmate milestone we surpassed late in 2010."- Chief Executive Officer, Damon Hininger

29. Tough-on crime politiciansMany politicians feel pressure from constituents to appear harsh on crime, which could prevent them from supporting legislation that may come off as lenient.

30. Virginia Delegate Rob Bell

31. “New drunk driving laws crack down on repeat offenders and “super drunk” driversLaws to mandate jail for drunks who drive with children in the carLaws to promote prosecution of child pornographers and sexual predatorsLaws to keep violent sexual predators off of school property during school hours”

32. House Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin)

33. Authored the PATRIOT Act“Law enforcement should be provided the appropriate tools to protect our borders and hunt down criminals and strong sentences are effective in deterring crime.”

34. Pro-prison reform interest groupsPeople passionate about civil libertiesIncludes ACLU and NORML

35. American Civil Liberties UnionFocus on Prison rights“The ACLU's National Prison Project is dedicated to ensuring that our nation’s prisons, jails, juvenile facilities and immigration detention centers comply with the Constitution, federal law, and international human rights principles, and to addressing the crisis of over-incarceration in the U.S. Since 1972”mostly likely support legislation that will reduce the prison sentence and thus reduce overcrowding

36. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana LawOrganization that fights for drug law reformmany prisoners in jail are being held for drug charges which have a minimum sentence depending on how much of the drug they were found with NORML would most likely support this policy because it could affect many of their members.

37. Questions? Comments?Compliments?