The Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentences on Criminal Justice

Famm states that mandatory minimum sentences are imposed when laws restrict judges' discretion. Those convicted of specific crimes must serve a set amount of time in prison, determined by the type of offense. Amanda Dollak, who earned her criminal justice degree from CTU, explains that mandatory sentencing guarantees equal punishment for similar crimes, regardless of a judge's opinions. These laws differ by state and can be found in other countries as well.

California implemented the "3 strikes you're out" policy in 1994, leading to offenders receiving life sentences after their third conviction (Friedman 109).

This approach has been embraced by various regions, including Britain which now enforces a three-year minimum prison term for a third burglary offense (Carrillo).

The United States Congress passed the Boggs Act in 1952, establishing mandatory minimum sentences for crimes such as possession of a weapon, drugs, and rape (Carrillo). The primary reason for this action was to address drug trafficking between Mexico and the United States (Risley). Under the Boggs Act, first-time marijuana possession was classified as a felony with a mandatory sentence of 2-10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine determined by the amount possessed.

Get quality help now

writer-marian

Verified writer

Proficient in: Crime

4.8 (309)

“ Writer-marian did a very good job with my paper, she got straight to the point, she made it clear and organized ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

In 1970, Congress repealed a law that mandated a sentence for individuals caught with small amounts of marijuana due to its harshness. Since then, revisions have been made to reduce discrimination and align more closely with the offense. Prior to these changes, judges had complete discretion to impose any sentence within legal limits.

Risley believed that the disparity in sentencing for convicted felons was unfair, with some receiving long prison terms while others were given much more lenient sentences.

Congress changed this by establishing mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for serious drug offenses (Carrillo). After setting guidelines for drug offenses, mandatory sentencing guidelines were also established for other crimes such as possession of a gun during another crime, gun possession, robbery, and rape.

According to Amanda Dollak, there is ongoing debate about whether this approach truly benefits the system. She notes that with mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines in place for certain crimes, the majority of judges (both state and federal) are against this system. Judges believe that each case should be considered on an individual basis, as some feel that certain sentences do not match the severity of the crimes committed. The opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing is prevalent, with a survey in 1993 showing that 90% of over 400 state and federal judges were against these guidelines (Waller p 185).

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens criticized mandatory minimum sentences for imposing prison terms that are significantly disproportionate to the moral culpability of the offender, while Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that such sentences are often deemed unwise and unjust (Waller p 185). The push for uniform sentencing guidelines by legislators and their supporters is driven by a desire to deter criminal behavior and ensure consistent treatment for similar offenses, thereby safeguarding against potential disparities in sentencing.

Additionally, increasing the imprisonment of criminals who have been found guilty can improve public safety. Certain conservatives and prosecutors believe that some judges have not been strict enough on perpetrators by ignoring sentencing recommendations. It is important to recognize that each crime is unique and not all situations require identical punishment. Those against mandatory minimum sentences argue that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that harsher or longer sentences deter criminals, particularly in cases involving drugs.

Overcrowded jails are made worse by the unequal treatment of non-violent criminals, who often receive harsher sentences than those convicted of more serious crimes like rape or murder. Furthermore, mandatory sentencing laws have a disproportionate impact on African Americans compared to other racial or ethnic groups (Campbell 53). Studies conducted by the federal judicial center reveal that white offenders are less likely than black or Hispanic offenders to be subject to mandatory minimum sentences for their offenses.

According to Vincent/Hofer, the implementation of mandatory minimums has led to an increase in the disparity of average sentences between black individuals and other groups. Reports have shown that possession of various forms of cocaine can lead to mandatory sentencing. The chances of receiving a mandatory sentence for possessing powder cocaine, commonly used by Caucasian drug users, is minimal. On the other hand, possession of crack cocaine, primarily used by black drug users, is more likely to result in a mandatory minimum sentence.

The media attribute the difference in sentencing for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine to the fact that crack is a more potent high, requiring a smaller amount to trigger mandatory sentences. Those convicted face additional consequences such as ineligibility for early parole and serving at least 85% of their sentence before being considered for release or parole (Vincent/Hofer).

If the laws for their offenses are changed, individuals will still be required to serve the prescribed time unless Congress opts to alter the mandatory minimum standards and apply them retroactively. The significant expense of maintaining prisoners in custody for long durations has led to considerable discussion on mandatory minimum sentences. In New Jersey, it costs between $38,000 and $40,000 to accommodate an inmate, with this financial burden ultimately falling on taxpayers. Furthermore, prison overcrowding is another aspect that should be taken into account when reassessing mandatory sentencing regulations.

"According to Feinman (p 329), mandatory sentencing laws have played a role in the significant increase in the number of people in prison, resulting in unconstitutional overcrowding. This has led to the release of dangerous offenders such as murderers and rapists back into society. The financial strain of hiring additional correctional officers and staff is putting pressure on both the prison budget and the public. In light of economic challenges, Congress is considering alternatives to mandatory sentencing in order to control costs."

Some individuals serving long mandatory sentences are appealing because they feel their sentences are too harsh compared to others who committed worse crimes but got shorter sentences. Mandatory sentencing laws require judges to follow specific guidelines when giving penalties. Supporters believe these strict sentences help achieve goals like longer prison time and deterring crime.

Although the concept of imposing lengthy mandatory sentences for severe offenses may appear appropriate, they can be disproportionately severe for minor street crimes and place a burden on taxpayers and the legal system. The current situation sees numerous non-violent offenders serving mandatory sentences, leading to overcrowded prisons. It is crucial for us to work together and find a resolution to abolish mandatory sentences that were initially designed for individuals who committed significant crimes such as drug kingpins, rather than minor offenders.