The Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws

The purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission is to “establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal criminal justice system that will assure the ends of justice by promulgating detailed guidelines prescribing the appropriate sentences for offenders convicted of federal crimes.” (Mustard 289) When it comes to the sentencing process, data is collected about the individual’s offense and criminal records to determine the offense level and criminal history score. Once they find those two scores that then indicate a range of sentence lengths. With certain circumstances, the judge can depart from the guidelines and issue a sentence that either exceeds the maximum or falls short of the minimum required by the guidelines. Once the sentencing range is determined, courts must adhere to the following constraints: “In determination of the sentence to impose within the guideline range, or whether a departure from the guidelines is warranted, the court may consider, without

Imagine you are a fifty-one year old man and you have not eaten in two days, and you resort to theft. Stealing a fifty-cent package of doughnuts from the corner store. You are at your home when suddenly officers burst in and arrest you. Then during your court proceedings, the prosecutor brings up two prior convictions from thirty years earlier so he can charge you under mandatory sentencing laws. This means a life sentence without parole over a fifty- cent pack of doughnuts. Though this scenario sounds too outrageous to be true, it happened to Robert Fassbender, a California man. States Attorney Yraceburn stated," Because of his (Fassbender) history of recidivism and the number of crimes he 's been convicted of," Fassbinder

In 1971, 1 out of 12 Americans were incarcerated. Since that time, the prisoner ratio has exponentially increased; today, that ratio is 1 out of 51. With that number continuing to rise, many problems result out of it. Prison overcrowding is a growing problem in the United States. The number of people being taken in has regressive effects on the purpose behind imprisonment. Though the prisoners are not there for a comfortable and enjoyable stay, ethical rights are being ignored. How can a someone carry out their sentence rightfully if the focus is taken away from them and put on the judgment of the courts and justice system? Prison overcrowding is without a doubt problematic and inhumane. The mandatory sentencing laws, lack of attention on

As we look at supermax prisons they are used to house many violent offenders to mainly keep them away from all other prisoners in solitary confinement like cells for a long period of time and most of them will never be released.  The main issue that Schmalleger and Smykla describe is the fact of a mental illness starting due to supermax confinement and where none previously existed in the past (2015).  The issue with that is it could get them out of a supermax prison, which I believe that is completely ridiculous because they were already crazy enough to commit the crime they did to get in there.  The other ways it does effect the person in prison is that it could lead to a bunch of different symptoms and possibly even suicide from being confined

Today I called the Illinois Representative Michael J. Madigan office and received his answering machine. I left him a message asking him to please consider passing bills for sentencing reform legislation, such as the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (SRCA), S.2123. I told him that I am a registered voter and it has come to my attention that the federal prison population has skyrocketed dramatically over the past 35 years and most of the people in the prisons are in for minimum drug sentences. I told him that while people are in prison they are losing income, job skills, and are typically unable to attend rehabilitation programs. All of these aspects make it extremely difficult for the people to obtain jobs or get on the right path once

In this day and age, There are five times as many people in jail as there were in the 1970s. Almost 5 percent of the population of the United States will go to prison at in point of their life. Conservatives believe that imprisonment reduces crime in two ways: it removes criminals from the public so they can not commit more crimes, and it also discourages people who would commit a crime as they consider the consequences. Unfortunately, neither of these outcomes have come to be true. In fact, mass incarceration and “tough on crime” laws have been extremely ineffective that instead of reducing crime, it increases it. There are several different ways to effectively reduce crime other than these two strategies, such as reforming certain policies

The role of the government is to keep everyone and everything in line. The government should have a sentencing reform because with the system we have now it 's just making things worse. Some people are being placed in jail because of their color when there are real criminals that are set free when they really did do something wrong like murdering someone. The government should have a sentencing reform because the system now is just making things worse.

What are your thoughts about the prison system? Today 's prisons are so bad that prisons in the United States hold 5 percent of the US population. Many people get sent to jail cause of the 3 law strike because a lot of minorities are caught with drugs. Plus the government is wasting 75 billion dollars on these facilities instead of using the money in a better way like making programs for the prisoners that need help with mental health or other stuff.

The are several types of sentencing that follows what is intended to be an impartial judicial proceeding during which criminal responsibility is ascertaining. Majority of the sentencing decisions are made by judges, although in cases such as death sentence cases, a jury may be involved in a special sentencing of the sentencing process. Unfortunately, sentencing decision is one of the most difficult made by any judge or a jury especially when it impacts someone’s life. Additionally, there are numerous sentencing models in the United States such as determinate, indeterminate, and mandatory minimum sentencing. First, determinate sentencing is a set term of incarceration and sentencing could potentially be reduced by good time. Offenders also have an opportunity to get time reduced off their conviction by participating in educational programs and community services. Second, indeterminate sentencing is enforced through releasing an incarcerated offender by a parole board that can be revoked for violating those conditions. In indeterminate sentencing, punishments are generally fit the criminal rather than the crime they are committed are convicted of. Third, the mandatory sentences are those that are required by law under certain circumstances such as conviction of a specified crime or of a series of offenses. By 1994, all 50 states had authorized several mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Offenders that who used weapons or illegal drugs may face additional time to their prison time. Under the terms of mandatory sentencing an offender is required to serve a specified amount of time before being eligible for release Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2015).

Many people have their own opinion about sentencing reform. Some people think that it should be change while others think that it should stay how it is. In my opinion i think that they should not change it.

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.

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

Sentencing methods and rationales are continually highly contested in the Criminal Justice system. Monetary penalties are particularly pivotal in these debates. According to Walsh, research from all corners of the world continually demonstrates that the poorest in society are more likely to be subject to the Criminal Justice System. This evidence Walsh argues, ‘cannot be ignored’, when considering which sentencing options should be used. The fine is the most commonly used penal sanction in most Western Penal systems. Fines are a historic type of monetary penalty which have remained incredibly popular. Outside of the United States, fines make up about 70 % of all punishments in the lower courts. The fine can be seen as a modest penalty, and appropriate, in my opinion, only if the offence was minor. Bentham sees monetary penalties as ‘ideal’. This I argue is incorrect. Monetary penalties have so many disadvantages that they should not be used to a greater extent in the criminal justice system. Thus some have gone as far to argue that they should be completely abolished. However Burch has said that this would not be possible so reform should be favoured instead. I will argue that updating their current use is essential in order to make the current system of fines more effective and more restricted. I will continue to discuss why fines are not effective, from their rational, to their effect on the offender to the way that they are set in practice. I will conclude

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. Before we jump to judgmental conclusions about someone that has been convicted of a crime, then sentenced a lengthy prison term under the mandatory minimum laws, we must first dissect ourselves. I will leave you with this simple question: Have you ever made a decision without fully understanding how the outcome would turn

(Garland , 2001) argues that up until the 1970’s penal welfarism controlled policy makers, it became the most significant ideology amongst specialists and academics. The welfarists’ principles utilised were “Assist, Advise and Befriend” offenders were regarded as “unfortunate”. However this type of system (Garland , 2001, p. 141)suggests that this type of justice policy is bifurcated by an adaptive approach typified by community partnerships and sovereign state strategy that stresses coercive control of offenders. This divide according to Garland developed when high crime rates became normal and rehabilitative ideals fell out of favour and the mantra nothing works mantra echoed around political venues. Punitive welfare failed to protect the