POLICY ISSUE Mandatory minimum sentencing is a judicial policy in the United States that requires judges to punish certain crimes with an absolute minimum period of time in prison, regardless of circumstance (USSC, 1991). The 1980s and 1990s have been classified as the ‘tough on crime’ era in regards to US criminal justice legislation and then-criminal justice reform. Anti-drug sentiment was pervasive throughout the country, with highly visible and expensive advertising campaigns directed for anti-drug causes. The campaigns were one aspect of a multi-faceted blitzkrieg on the increasing incidence of drug trafficking throughout the United States, particularly crack cocaine. In addition, mandatory minimum sentencing was instated during the Reagan administration, primarily to address the perceived crack and greater drug epidemic, expanding throughout the next decade. It was a popular issue that crossed party lines, being embraced by the Republican Reagan and Bush administrations, and continuing with the Democratic Clinton administration in the 1990s; by 1994 mandatory minimums were enforced in 31 states and Washington, DC (Baker, 2018). PUBLIC POLICY Mandatory minimum sentencing is covered under the Regulatory public policy as this type of policy limits the actions of people in order to protect the general public. In order to protect the general public - the people of the United States, mandatory minimums were introduced as a means to control or stymie ‘dangerous criminals’. POLICY MODIFICATION One revision to this policy I would introduce would be the elimination of mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenses. I believe this would positively impact this policy because currently the state and federal prisons are overcrowded, partly due to those incarcerated for lengthy prison sentences for drug charges. Individuals sentenced to prison time for drug offenses should have their cases re-evaluated and determined on a case-by-case basis versus on a standard nationwide scale. When the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was initiated, the new polices were not said to be retroactive and only applied to new cases. Many of those who are currently incarcerated would not receive the same sentences if their cases were tried in court today. I do not believe a one size fits all policy is conducive to fixing the overall drug problems in the U.S. A second modification to this policy I would introduce would be the re-instatement of judicial power and discretion. Mandatory minimum sentencing essentially removes the discretion of judges from the equation when it comes to sentencing. Judges should have the power to veto certain sentencing standards, but with mandatory minimums their hands are tied. Again, each case should be judged and evaluated individually and not on a national standardized scale. If the U.S. were to issue commutations to all prisoners incarcerate ...

1. POLICY ISSUE
Mandatory minimum sentencing is a judicial policy in the
United States that requires
judges to punish certain crimes with an absolute minimum
period of time in prison, regardless of
circumstance (USSC, 1991). The 1980s and 1990s have been
classified as the ‘tough on crime’
era in regards to US criminal justice legislation and then-
criminal justice reform. Anti-drug
sentiment was pervasive throughout the country, with highly
visible and expensive advertising
campaigns directed for anti-drug causes. The campaigns were
one aspect of a multi-faceted
blitzkrieg on the increasing incidence of drug trafficking
throughout the United States,
particularly crack cocaine. In addition, mandatory minimum
sentencing was instated during the
Reagan administration, primarily to address the perceived crack
and greater drug epidemic,
expanding throughout the next decade. It was a popular issue
that crossed party lines, being

2. embraced by the Republican Reagan and Bush administrations,
and continuing with the
Democratic Clinton administration in the 1990s; by 1994
mandatory minimums were enforced in
31 states and Washington, DC (Baker, 2018).
PUBLIC POLICY
Mandatory minimum sentencing is covered under the
Regulatory public policy as this
type of policy limits the actions of people in order to protect the
general public. In order to
protect the general public - the people of the United States,
mandatory minimums were
introduced as a means to control or stymie ‘dangerous
criminals’.
POLICY MODIFICATION
One revision to this policy I would introduce would be the
elimination of mandatory
minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenses. I believe
this would positively impact this
policy because currently the state and federal prisons are
overcrowded, partly due to those
incarcerated for lengthy prison sentences for drug charges.
Individuals sentenced to prison time

3. for drug offenses should have their cases re-evaluated and
determined on a case-by-case basis
versus on a standard nationwide scale. When the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010 was initiated, the
new polices were not said to be retroactive and only applied to
new cases. Many of those who
are currently incarcerated would not receive the same sentences
if their cases were tried in court
today. I do not believe a one size fits all policy is conducive to
fixing the overall drug problems
in the U.S.
A second modification to this policy I would introduce would
be the re-instatement of
judicial power and discretion. Mandatory minimum sentencing
essentially removes the
discretion of judges from the equation when it comes to
sentencing. Judges should have the
power to veto certain sentencing standards, but with mandatory
minimums their hands are tied.
Again, each case should be judged and evaluated individually
and not on a national standardized
scale.

4. If the U.S. were to issue commutations to all prisoners
incarcerated for non-violent, drug
offenses in one mass sweep, I do believe this would have
negative consequences. Not every case
is the same and some prisoners may not meet specific criteria to
be released back into society.
This could be for a number of different reasons, such as
behavior in prison, has the prisoner
taken advantage of any rehabilitation programs while
incarcerated, has a release plan been
established to mitigate the risk of repeat offenses or behaviors.
Maintaining the current three-
strike rule also has negative connotations to addressing the mass
incarceration problems in the
U.S. The three-strike rule states a third felony, regardless of
what type of felony, constitutes a
mandatory, lengthy prison sentence, typically a life sentence.
The three felony charges could
amount to non-violent crimes with a monetary amount of $500
each, however the bill for the
federal government to incarcerate someone for a life sentence
could amount to well over
$500,000.00; and this is per person.

5. THE CONSTITUTION
The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states
‘excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted’ (Levy, n.d.).
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the U.S. potentially
violates this constitutional right
because the sentences can be viewed as excessive or cruel and
unusual. It has been theorized in
the past that the drug epidemic the U.S. government legislated
mandatory minimums against was
created by (or at least significantly contributed from) the U.S.
government itself. It was revealed
in 1996 that the US Central Intelligence Agency likely funded
the ‘contra’ insurgency against the
Nicaraguan government in the 1980s, using millions of dollars
raised from the black-market sale
of crack cocaine to urban Los Angeles (Blum 1996). Therefore,
it could be (and has been) argued
that mandatory minimum sentences represented the U.S.
government, strongly punishing a
population for suffering from an epidemic that they themselves
intentionally infected (Baker,

6. 2018).
The 14th Amendment states ‘nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws’ (LII, n.d.). Mandatory minimum
sentencing could be viewed as
unconstitutional in the realm of the 14th amendment because of
the enactment of the Fair
Sentencing Act not being retroactive. One could argue this to
be an unequal representation of
protection of the law.
The federal government enacted the mandatory minimum
sentencing laws in the U.S.,
therefore placing a general practice all states must follow. This
does not leave room for
interpretation of the sentencing rules as the law is stated for
every judge to follow, regardless of
each individual circumstance.

7. REFERENCES
Baker, S. (2018). Written Communication. Unpublished
communication assignment. Strayer
University.
Levy, M. (n.d.). Eighth Amendment. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eighth-
Amendment
Blum, W. (1996). The CIA, contras, gangs, and crack. Foreign
Policy in Focus. Retrieved from
https://ips-dc.org/the_cia_contras_gangs_and_crack/

8. Legal Information Institute (n.d.). Cornell Law School. 14th
Amendment. Retrieved from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eighth-
%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20A
mendment
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eighth-
%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20A
mendment