Arguments Against Mandatory Minimums

766 Words4 Pages
The initial thinking behind the creation of minimum mandatory sentences was created by congress to aim in the capture and imprisonment of high level drug traffickers, and deter others from entering into drug trafficking or using illegal substances, which would create a safer society. However, the nation prison has been expanded with low level street drug dealers, and the accessibility to illegal drugs is more obtainable then before the enactment of the mandatory sentencing act. In fact, the number of drug offenders in federal prisons has increased 21 times since 1980. Contrary to what congress has believed in the past about the dangers of crack cocaine compared to that in powder form has been proven to be untrue, but little has been done to reduce the number of prisons affected by that belief. More interestingly, the drugs that are more common to be either produce, used or sold by African-Americans are given harsher penalties than drugs that are often used by the white population such as powder cocaine. Which has in turn, greatly contributes to the high incarceration rates among blacks, and the discretions of sentences given to blacks over other races.
The heightened prison population has affected the taxpayers. Due to a
…show more content…
In fact the data shown that half of the drug offenses of offenders involved crack cocaine, followed by marijuana offenses. The Bureau of Prisons has reviled that well over 70% of the recent prison growth is related to the mandatory minimum sentencing. As of today only 3 percent of federal cases ever go to trial. Many prosecutors use the threat of mandatory minimums to coerce guilty pleas and longer sentences to offenders, or use the small street dealer to build a case against the leaders of the criminal
Open Document