Abstract
This paper analyzes the issues concerning mandatory minimum sentencing, 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 mandatory minimum sentencing 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."

Tags:punishment, crime, dealers, drugs, bill, penalties

Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses that Canada retains about 40 criminal offenses to which mandatory minimum sentencing (MMS) applies. Liberal opponents tend to speak of offenders unnecessarily incarcerated whereas a main defect of MMS involves the extreme offender who receives a minimum sentence when actually warranting a longer/more severe penalty. The writer discusses that MMS is doubtful as a deterrent but helpful in incapacitating repeat offenders led by sex offenders/impaired drivers.

From the Paper
"In Canada, there are more than three dozen offenses for which the Criminal Code assigns minimum sentences. Liberal critics of the Canadian criminal justice system argue that these do not function as deterrents as in the example of sexual assault which can occur again on the part of persons already having served one or more minimum sentences for the same offense. However, this view can obscure what a minimum sentence can achieve in terms of demonstrating how particular crimes are regarded with regard for their seriousness. Minimum sentencing in the United Kingdom, United States ..."

Tags:advantages, defects

Abstract
This paper explains that mandatory minimum sentencing (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
Minimum Sentencing in Canada
Defects in Minimum Sentencing
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."

Tags:deterrence, incapacitation, simplifies, overcrowded, judge

Abstract
This paper examines the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for certain criminal offenses and whether these guidelines help or hinder justice.

Abstract
Mandatory sentences 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 mandatory minimum sentences 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 mandatory minimum sentencing 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."

Tags:judges, justice, prison, obstruction, congress, senate, imprisonment, intent, possession, offenders

Abstract
The writer of this paper suggests that the solution to the problem of increased crime statistics is to do away with mandatory minimum sentencing 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 mandatory minimum sentencing.

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."

Tags:murder, drug, jail, incarciration, judicial, legal, system, prison

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 mandatory minimum sentencing 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."

Tags:cost-benefit, recidivism, overcrowding

Abstract
A paper that argues why mandatory minimum 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?"

Tags:addict, drug, drugs, jail, law, prison, sentencing

Abstract
Uses the specific example of John S. Martin, a federal judge in New York City, to explore the negative consequences mandatory-minimum sentencing 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."

Tags:statutory, limits, 1984, sentencing, reform, act, commission, amber, alert, bill, guidelines

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 mandatory minimum sentences 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."

Tags:recidivism, drug, crimes, offenses