Abstract This paper explains that mandatoryminimumsentencing (MMS) rests on aims of deterrence and of incapacitation so that a lawbreaker, who is likely to repeat an offense, is removed as a risk to the public. The author points out that critics of the criminal justice system indicate that, without MMS, immense discrepancies regarding punishment assigned for the same offenses by different parties would exist. The paper also relates that, under MMS, a judge, who is able to discern an irregular circumstance related to a crime, is no longer free to adjust what he or she hands down to an offender. The author concludes that, in Canada, at present, perhaps the strongest argument against MMS is the inadequacy of prison resources and community support services, which would be overloaded because MMS would involve more offenders being assigned to prisons.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
MinimumSentencing in Canada
Defects in MinimumSentencing Concluding Remarks
From the Paper "Gabor & Crutcher noted how the existence of minimum penalties for an array of crimes to an extent simplifies court proceedings towards reduced court costs, but that these are more than realized in the prison system where many timeservers now incarcerated for minimum sentences. Another factor to be kept in mind is the mentality of a serious offender who may not resent serving prison time as much as he or she may be more adverse to community sentences involving instructions, conditions and probation supervision."
Abstract This paper analyzes the issues concerning mandatoryminimumsentencing, created by politicians convinced that crime was out of control. It looks at how the public wanted something done and that one aspect of the problem was that judges were exercising too much discretion and not sending enough people to prison for a long enough period of time. It discusses how mandatoryminimumsentencing began as a tool in the drug war in 1986 when House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. ordered his Democratic committee chairmen to produce a crime bill that toughened penalties on drug dealers.
From the Paper "There is considerable public support for the idea that criminals need to be given harsher punishment and almost none for the idea that some other means should be taken to reduce crime. Those concerned about crime can point to a number of statistical studies to show that crime is increasing and is not being punished at the level the public would prefer. A National Punishment Survey conducted by the Population and Society Research Center at Bowling Green State University in 1987 showed that the public recommends prison sentences for a variety of violent and other serious crimes that would be approximately three times longer than offenders actually serve."
Abstract Mandatorysentences are decisions that limit judicial discretion by setting the minimum punishment that must be inflicted on a person convicted of a crime. The paper focuses specifically on these mandatoryminimumsentences as they apply to drug-related offenses, with special emphasis on sentencing for powder cocaine as it compares to sentencing for crack cocaine. The paper describes these mandatoryminimumsentencing guidelines, shows the arguments in support of and in opposition to these guidelines, before finally describing the author's own position on the matter.
From the Paper "In areas where drug offenses are common, there is a concern that judges and other law enforcement officials may become desensitized to the seriousness of the offenses, simply because they happen so often. For this reason, mandatory minimums can prevent this trivialization of drug crimes, by ensuring that despite a judge's personal feelings towards drug use or sympathy for a defendant, said defendant would not be given a lesser punishment. There is also a belief among supporters of mandatory minimums that in jurisdictions saturated with drug use, offenders may be viewed in a less harsh light because "everybody does it". Some fear this attitude might cause judges, especially those with many years on the bench, to be more lenient. With the original thinking of mandatory minimums stemming from "Comprehensive Crime Control," leniency would be an undesirable outcome. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act was designed to show that drug offenses are intolerable, and that anyone violating drug laws will certainly be punished. Mandatory minimums prevent criminals from being treated like anything other than criminals."
An argumentative paper about drug sentencing. A paper that argues why mandatoryminimum drug sentencing does not work as a tactic in the so-called "war on drugs," with quotes, facts, and stories of the convicted.
890 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, 2001, $ 31.95
Abstract A paper that argues why mandatoryminimum drug sentencing does not work as a tactic in the so-called "war on drugs," with quotes, facts, and stories of the convicted.
From the Paper "Our judicial system is set up so that one is innocent until proven guilty, and so that the punishment fits the crime. This is part of why many view America as the greatest democracy on earth: our laws and punishments, in comparison to some other countries, seem fair and humane. One would think, then, that a convicted rapist or murderer would spend more time in prison than a first-time drug offender charged with dealing a small amount of marijuana, for example. Naturally, right? Not so fast--today's "mandatory minimum" laws, designed to be harsh on all drug offenders, are putting people behind bars for a long time. Spawned by the United States? ?War on Drugs,? these laws leave judges with little choice when sentencing drug offenders, with mandatory minimum sentences for all drug offenders. These laws target everyone from small-scale pot dealers whose clientele consists only of a few friends, to large-scale heroin gangsters. These laws intend to scare drug offenders with a "no tolerance" policy, which, in theory, is a good idea. However, many are asking the question: is this really the most just and effective way of eradicating our country's drug problem?"
Abstract This paper explains that the high federal prison rate, resulting in the overcrowding of federal prisons, is caused by the long, unjust and ineffective sentences required by the federal mandatoryminimumsentencing guidelines. The author points out that re-instituting federal parole or instituting programs similar to the programs of the state drug courts would help reconcile the issue of the ever increasing prison population and the related ever increasing cost. The paper recommends federal parole, which would allow inmates to be released from prison earlier than their imposed sentence with very specific rules to abide-by overseen by a parole officer, and required drug treatment for addicts.
From the Paper "Drug laws were first enacted in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Act, which taxed narcotics and required those who dispensed drugs to obtain a license. The Harrison Narcotics Act specifically targeted the growing number of opiate addicts in the United States after the Civil War. The sale of opium and cocaine were regulated, and later the prohibition of production and importation of heroin were all included in this Act. In 1937, marijuana was characterized as a narcotic, and was taxed and legislated by the Marijuana Tax Act. The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 introduced the first law requiring mandatory prison sentences for using and selling illegal substances."
Abstract Uses the specific example of John S. Martin, a federal judge in New York City, to explore the negative consequences mandatory-minimumsentencing laws have on the authority and performance of judges, parole officers, and probation officers.
From the Paper "John S. Martin, who served as a federal judge in New York City for 13 years, originally intended to retire as many of his peers had, reducing his workload but staying involved in what he considered an interesting and valuable profession. Indeed, he thought that value outweighed the modest salary he would receive; he knew full well he could earn much more as a lawyer in private practice."
Abstract The writer of this paper suggests that the solution to the problem of increased crime statistics is to do away with mandatoryminimumsentencing and promote get-tough-on-crime measures by focusing on violent crime. The paper discusses how evidence laws should be tightened in cases of "conspiracy" to prevent the abuse of the system and rewarding upper-level dealers at the expense of the low-level dealer or associate. People should also be made aware of the reality of mandatoryminimumsentencing.
From the Paper "One hears a lot of talk nowadays about how politicians are getting tough on crime. The national prison population as a percentage of the total population is in America higher than in any other country. Currently about 2 million people are in jail. 10% of all men in America, and a third of all black men, will be incarcerated at some point. To defeat this trend, states such as Oregon often consider "get soft on crime" measures that cut back sentencing for serious offenders such as murderers and rapists. We regularly hear of murderers and psychotic child molesters serving only a couple years before being released. Murders, we are told, have to be released after only five or ten years because there simply isn"t enough room to hold all of them. The average sentence served (in 1995) for rape and homicide was between five and six years; more minor crimes like robbery averaged under four years. So why are our jails so full, and are there really that many murderers" The answer, of course, lies in the fact that well over a third of the prison population consists of non-violent drug offenders serving minimum sentences. For example, the mandatory minimum sentence for "conspiracy" to sell drugs (even if no drugs were ever directly found on the offender) is ten or twenty years depending on the amount of drugs alleged to be involved. Unlike other categories of crime, since conspiracy is a crime of intention rather than commission, no physical evidence is necessary and hear-say allegations are sufficient for conviction. Serving minimum sentences without parole, the average drug offender will stay in prison twice as long as the average murderer. Minimum mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenders impose draconian sentences on non-violent low-level offenders, filling the jails and creating pressure to release violent offenders, while removing power of discretion from judges to assure that the crime and sentence are in proportion."
Abstract This paper examines two opposing views of the "Three Strikes" legislation and contends that the proponents of this legislation demonstrate a more convincing argument. The paper looks at the issue of mandatoryminimumsentences and their effects upon drug crimes. The paper also reviews the length of incarceration time and its effect upon recidivism. The paper concludes that it is the duty of the citizenry to be sufficiently informed in order to encourage the proper actions of their political leaders.
From the Paper "Few topics create political turmoil more than crime and punishment, and thus being such a hot button issue there are equally passionate and divergent points of view on the subject. Each point of view generally relies upon the same data set to draw their polar opposite opinions, and rarely do the facts get in the way of a strong politically motivated opinion. It is important to bear in mind the realities of a politically charged climate when reviewing these subjects, especially when each party is equally interested in the same goal, an overall reduction in crime and victimization of the innocent."
Abstract The way criminals are sentenced in America depends largely on crime rates, theories on how to deter crime, and the degree to which the public feels threatened by crime. Historically, various approaches to sentencing have been taken. This paper traces approaches used since World War II and shows how mandatory drug sentences, three-strike laws, and truth-in-sentencing have filled the prisons but more often with individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses than violent criminals.
This paper discusses the debate over stiffer prison sentences in Canada and analyzes the problems of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Abstract This paper addresses the debate in Canada of whether or not to create stiffer prison sentences as a means of deterring crime. The author asserts that Canada look no further than to the legislation passed by the U.S. for the same purpose. This paper examines the failures and shortcomings of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which established longer minimumsentences for criminals guilty of committing certain crime. The paper establishes that minimumsentencing does not deter criminals from criminal activity and is costly to tax payers.
From the Paper "Some may feel uncomfortable that criminals walk the streets, and angry that criminals are allowed to be freed. Public opinion and the common consensus is that justice system is too soft on criminals, which caused the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to come about. The Act caused incredible deficiencies in the system of properly treating and rehabilitating criminals to prevent people from returning to criminal activities. The justice system in America, Canada and countries worldwide should not get rid of sentencing, as jail should remain a place for people to do time for their acts but justice systems worldwide should invest more into education, training, counselling and addiction treatment. This would yield lower prison populations and recidivism rates than stiff minimum sentencing would achieve, resulting in a much more cost efficient and effective justice system. America should amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, reinvest the money in weak areas of the justice system."
Tags: congress, bill clinton, canada, us department of justice, prison
Abstract This paper explains that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created a differentiation of sentencing for powder versus crack cocaine offenses, has had a very negative impact on African-American offenders. The paper points out that the current problem is the perceived 'right' of the judge presiding over crack offense case sentencing to depart from mandatoryminimumsentencing for these offenses. The paper also points out that this policy is shockingly perverse under the governing Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The paper then concludes with four policy recommendations to correct this situation.
Table of Contents:
Historical Background of the Policy
Current Problem
Description of Policy
Policy Analysis
Policy Recommendations
Policy Recommendation One
Policy Recommendation Two
Policy Recommendation Three
Policy Recommendation Four
From the Paper "These are often the same lawmakers who are handsomely rewarded by public sector groups such as correctional officers' unions and other law enforcement groups, who also profit from criminalization and mass imprisonment. Less directly, the privatization of prisons contributes to and buoys the overall "culture" of law enforcement and criminal justice, one that levels our common sense understanding of the causes of our social problems and puts as their solution responses of violence, force and containment."
Tags: ownership, drug quantity disparity, judge, decision-making model, sentencing commission
Abstract This paper gives an account of the history of mandatorysentencing in Australia. The paper also explains what lessons can be learned from this history.
Abstract This paper introduces, discusses and analyzes the topic of criminal justice. Specifically it discusses why criminal sentencing guidelines are set up the way that they are. It looks at the history of sentencing and discusses some of the controversial aspects of sentencing policies. It then looks at ways that policies on sentencing could be improved.
From the Paper "However, there are exceptions to sentencing guidelines in modern criminal sentencing, and that is one aspect of sentencing that brings forth many critics. The most controversial aspect of sentencing are mandatory guidelines for specific crimes, and many people feel these mandatory sentences simply do not work. Often the sentences are too long in these cases, or the history of the criminal and the facts of the crime are not brought into being. In short, there are exceptions to all rules, specially these (Bowman, 2003, p. B05). This is evident in statistics since 1970. During that time, the prison population has more than quadrupled, indicating a harder line, mandatory approach to many criminals in the sentencing process (Reitz, 2000, p. 541). Rehabilitation has become far less desirable, while alternative forms of punishment, such as house arrest and community service have been investigated as punishment for some "white-collar" crimes."
Abstract This paper argues that racial discrimination in the sentencing of blacks has taken away judicial discretion and created an expensive and regretful policy of imprisoning large numbers of blacks, who might have been better off given second chances. The author points out that the passage of the crack cocaine law in 1986 made black defendants much more liable to spend time in prison if they were street dealers of crack cocaine rather than if they were dealing powder cocaine, which is essentially the same drug. The paper emphasizes that crack cocaine sentences are the largest factor in racial disparity in federal sentencing. Includes charts.
From the Paper "The cocaine sentencing debate that followed the implementation of the 1986 law has shown the depth of the impact of crack sentencing disparity. In the 1980s, crack cocaine use was covered widely by the press, due to its rapid growth in the drug market. For the first time cocaine was made available to a wider economic class because of its cheap price. By taking powder cocaine, cooking it with baking soda and water, a hard rocky substance is created that can be cracked into smaller pieces called "Crack." These "rocks" are then sold in small quantities."
