The mandatory minimum sentencing law provides a judge with a set minimum sentences based on the charges against the defendant. The minimum sentences are usually extremely long sentences. Judges are not able to reduce the charges no matter what the defense’s argument may be. Normally in court, the defense is able to argue for a shorter sentence, but that is not the case for mandatory sentencing laws. All the power of sentencing lies with the prosecutors in these cases. Mandatory minimum sentencing policies were set into action with good intentions, but the law did not turn out as expected. The mandatory minimum sentencing acts were created to provide equality that every offender of the particular crime will serve the same punishment. This ensures that there will be no bias. They were expected to lower crime rates, because people will possibly think twice before committing a crime if the mandatory minimum sentence is five year or if they have been convicted before, they will not want to be incarcerated again for double the time. Judges cannot change the sentence. All the reasons that the mandatory minimum sentencing laws were set into place appear to be good ideas, but they are ineffective. The law has not shown crime reduction. The history of mandatory sentencing in the United states for federal drug crimes had started with the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, also known as SRA. Congress had changed sentencing by rejecting the idea or the possibility of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Frieson?. For the first issue, “Does the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, set out in section 99(2), violate section 12 of the Charter?” , Judge Oullette differentiated between the intended purpose behind Parliament’s mandatory minimum sentencing and the sentencing objectives. Bill C-10 was created in order to place a stop to handguns, drug trafficking, and gang violence.
Three-Strikes Law It is my intention to establish a relationship between the three strikes law and retention rates of prisoners incarcerated for low level offenses. Before I begin to discuss the three-strikes law, it is imperative that I give some background information on sentencing guidelines. During the 1970 's the incarceration sentences imposed were indeterminate, meaning the judge had the discretion to sentence an offender on a case by case basis and sentencing a person to state prison or county jail was supposed to be to rehabilitate that person so he/she could re-enter society. Often time’s prisoners were sentenced to different amounts of time for similar offenses.
2 In recent years, mandatory sentencing laws have been introduced in NSW. Alcohol related violence mandatory sentence was introduced by the NSW government On 21 January 2014. This was introduced because of the amount of one-punch hits while intoxicated. Teens such as Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie have been killed because intoxicated people for no reason hit them.
The existence of mandatory minimums are a major issue in the United States today. Since the implementation of Mandatory minimums, the prison population has increased 800%. This massive rise in prisoner population has come with devastating economic and human costs. The death of Len Bias, the moral panic that ensued, and corporate looking to make a profit off of it, have all culminated in the implementation of mandatory minimums. Len Bias was an American college basketball player who had just been recruited to play in the NBA, he died in 1986 due to a heart attack believed to have been caused by cocaine use.
In the early 1980s, the United States declared an all-out war on drugs and over the past several decades the United States of America has traveled down a dark road when it comes to sentencing for drug offenses. One of the major tools that they used in this war on drugs is the mandatory sentencing laws. These laws were enacted in 1984 to help combat and get violent drug dealers off our streets. What these laws did was set a mandatory minimum sentence that stated if you are arrested for fifteen or more grams of crack cocaine, you would be charged as if you had five hundred grams of powder cocaine thus getting you a minimum of a ten year sentence in prison. If you are arrested for growing 100 marijuana plants under these draconian laws, you would be charged as if you were possession of 100 pounds of marijuana which carries a minimum of a five-year
In the U.S. criminal justice system, there are two basic sentencing models that the courts use to apply their judgments. These are determinate sentencing and indeterminate sentencing. Determinate sentencing can be referred as a set sentence imposed to an offender this model is based on the famous phrase “Do the crime and will do the time”; however, this model has a unique quality and that is that a parole board can’t overturn the length of the sentence that was imposed. On the other hand indeterminate sentencing can be describe as the length of a sentences that has not being defined yet like the term “25 to life” on this term you can see that the sentencing was not set to an specific time frame, that means that the offenders release date is
So as not to punish an offender too harshly, the legislation may be drafted to decrease the sentence. This ensures that the society remains supportive of the justice system because when a sentence is delivered and it is unduly harsh or unduly lenient, the public may feel that the justice system has failed and that justice has not been served
Introduction Crime, its punishment, and the legislation that decides the way in which they interact has long been a public policy concern that reaches everyone within a given society. It is the function of the judicial system to distribute punishment equitably and following the law. The four traditional goals of punishment, as defined by Connecticut General Assembly (2001), are: “deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation.” However, how legislature achieves and balances these goals has changed due to the implementation of responses to changing societal influences. Mandatory minimum sentences exemplify this shift.
I would like to bring up the outdated practice of mandatory minimums because I believe they need to be removed or changed. Mandatory minimums give a mandatory minimum sentence for crimes without considering the context. These laws were established in the 1980s and has quadrupled the amount of people in prison. Many people in prison are in for minor drug offenses that get them a very long sentence. One example is Kevin Ott who has a life sentence for 3oz of meth.
Laws, Policies, Court Cases The main reason of the use of mandatory minimums and a root problem of it is the legal actions of the War on Drugs proposed by Richard Nixon during the 1970s. This in turn led to a drastic increase in prison population and did little to help the people addicted to the drugs. Attempts to mitigate the strength of punishments being handed out such as the commission of decriminalizing marijuana bills of 1973 and 1977, as well as the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 have been turned down. A court case that involves challenging the mandatory minimums is the court case of Alleyne v. United States, where in a 5 to 4 decision the court decided that facts that trigger a mandatory minimum sentence must be included and proven to a jury by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This goes against the Harris V. U.S This gives protection to the
Sentencing disparity within the American Judicial system is a problem that exists across the nation. According to Merriam Webster’s dictionary, disparity means the markedly distinct in quality or character. Many times, disparity is used in conjunction with discrimination as if the two words mean the same, but they do not. Disparity will include a difference in treatment or outcome but is not based on an opinion, bias or prejudice.
Should mandatory sentencing options exist for most crimes? In my opinion, mandatory sentencing should be given to those who commit crimes like murder, rape, Robbing. Compare to small crimes like small possession of drugs to disturbing the public places. A crime like those should be given probation or sent to a program to help them learn about their mistake they made, in the sense that they can learn from it. So, to be honest I feel like only certain kind of crime should have mandatory sentencing and not be so harsh with the little crimes that people do.
These law makers must properly asses this bill and the affects it will have on prisons systems, individual offenders, and the crime rate. All offenders should not be generalized and sentenced according one law because every circumstance is different. We must restore our faith in the appointed criminal judges that they will do everything within their power to administer the law appropriately and fair based on evidence and intent. Overturning mandatory minimum laws starts with knowing a few specific details. These details include: what mandatory minimums are and what brought about their start, knowing what classification of offenders are affected by the laws and if it is warranted for the offense, the number of inmates incarcerated currently that are serving mandatory minimum sentences, and the impact mandatory minimum laws have on the prison systems.
I believe that the longer the sentence, the more a criminal pays for what they have done. A determinate sentence is a sentence that has a defined length and can’t be changed by a parole agency. Six month sentences, for example, are considered determinate because the criminal will spend six months behind bars and sometimes less, due to time off for behaving good, released to work, or other alternatives when applicable. On the other hand, indeterminate sentences consist of many years in, for example, 30 years to life.
In other words, if a judge is lenient on one case and issues a lighter sentence, then the judges after him on similar cases will see that sentencing as a precedent and will issue lighter sentences for similar cases. This pattern can continue for as long as it takes and the sentencing can keep getting reduced and eventually the sentencing become useless if it is not enough time for retribution. The fifth deputy’s solution did not necessarily seem like a solution, because he was basically saying that people should be allowed to take the law into their own hands. This is never the right solution because allowing people to take matters into their own hands is promoting chaos, because people will become very vengeful and that starts the circle of revenge which never produces good