The Cost Ineffectiveness of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing In The U.S.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Strike (3) • Is intended individuals who appear to be repeated offenders. Therefore, this strike is for individuals who have two or more felony convictions, their sentencing would result in a minimum of 25 years to life. A similar "three strikes" policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory life sentence on a conviction for a second "serious" violent or sexual offence (i.e. "two strikes" law), a minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offence involving a class A drug, and a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for those convicted for the third time of burglary. An amendment by the Labor opposition established that mandatory sentences should not be imposed if the judge considered it unjust. According to figures released by the British government in 2005, just three drug dealers and eight burglars received mandatory sentences in the next seven years, because judges thought a longer sentence was unjust in all other drug and burglary cases where the defendant was found guilty. However, in 2003 a new "two strikes" law was enacted (effective from April 4, 2005), requiring courts to presume that a criminal who commits his second violent or dangerous offence deserves a life sentence unless the judge is satisfied that the defendant is not a danger to the public. This resulted in far more life sentences than the 1997 legislation. In response to prison overcrowding, the law was changed in 2008 to reduce the number of such sentences being passed, by restoring judicial discretion and abolishing the presumption that a repeat offender is dangerous. Australia's Northern Territory in March 1997 introduced mandatory sentences of one month to one year for the third offence regarding property and theft. They were later adopted by Western Australia. Race Concerning US federal prisons, Barbara S. Meierhoefer, in her report for the Federal Judicial Center stated: "The proportion of black offenders grew from under 10% in 1984 to 28% of the mandatory minimum drug offenders by 1990; whites now constitute less than a majority of this group. This is a much more dramatic shift than found in the federal offender population in general." Harsh penalties lead to racial disparity. According to the Statistical Overview of Mandatory Minimum Penalties presented in October 2011, "[o]f all offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum punishment and who remained subject to that penalty at sentencing, 38.5 percent were Black (n=4,076), 31.8 percent were Hispanic (n=3,364), and 27.5 percent (n=2,913) were White." Page 30 of 174
Although exceptions such as the safety valve are authorized, demographics associated with race relevant to mandatory sentencing continue to show. "Hispanic offenders received relief from applicable mandatory minimum penalties at the highest rates, with rates of 65.9 percent in fiscal year 2000, 57.7 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 55.7 percent in fiscal year 2010. Other Race offenders had the next highest rates (52.8% in fiscal year 2000, 53.1% in fiscal year 2005 and 58.9% in fiscal year 2010). Black offenders consistently had the lowest rates (45.7% in fiscal year 2000, 32.8 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 34.9% in fiscal year 2010). White offenders received relief at 60.3 percent in fiscal year 2000, 42.5 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 46.5 percent in fiscal year 2010." Arguments For And Against Opponents of mandatory sentencing point to studies that show criminals are deterred more effectively by increasing the chances of their conviction, rather than increasing the sentence if they are convicted. In a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Judge Paul G. Cassell, from the United States District Court for the District of Utah, described mandatory sentencing as resulting in harsh sentencing and cruel and unusual punishment, stating that the sentencing requirements punish defendants "more harshly for crimes that threaten potential violence than for crimes that conclude in actual violence to victims". A hearing in 2009 heard testimony from the American Bar Association which stated that "Sentencing by mandatory minimums is the antithesis of rational sentencing policy". In 2004 the association called for the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences, stating that "there is no need for mandatory minimum sentences in a guided sentencing system." A 1997 study by the RAND Corporation found that mandatory minimums for cocaine offenses were not cost-effective in regards to either cocaine consumption or drug crime. Some judges have expressed the opinion that mandatory minimum sentencing, especially in relation to alcohol-fueled violence, is not effective. In R v O’Connor, the High Court of Australia gave the opinion that when an offender is intoxicated, there will likely be a change in their personality and behavior, which will then affect their selfcontrol; that, while an offender may commit an act which is voluntary and intentional, it is not something that they would have done in a sober state. Intoxication is not a justification for criminal behavior, nor (in most jurisdictions in the U.S. and Commonwealth) a legal defense; but since an intoxicated person's decisions are less Page 31 of 174
Page 2 and 3: Page 2 of 174
Page 10 and 11: 4. Throughout the process, we encou
Page 18 and 19: This work is not meant to be a piec
Page 20 and 21: In Australia and the United Kingdom
Page 22 and 23: • Decisions Applying Policy vs. D
Page 24 and 25: 3. the offense did not result in de
Page 26 and 27: Legislation (Assault and Intoxicati
Page 28 and 29: The state of Florida in the United
Page 32 and 33: likely to be shaped by rational ass
Page 34 and 35: Quicktake Mandatory Minimum Sentenc
Page 36 and 37: The Argument The debate over punish
Page 38 and 39: Consider a building with a few brok
Page 40 and 41: Applications Bullying In The Workpl
Page 42 and 43: In Argentina, the Cordoba State Hig
Page 44 and 45: Opponents of zero tolerance believe
Page 46 and 47: Introduction California’s three-s
Page 48 and 49: (Welsh & Farrington, 2011). In addi
Page 50 and 51: incarceration has been the most pop
Page 52 and 53: especially in California. The incar
Page 54 and 55: Monetary Costs Mandatory sentencing
Page 56 and 57: who need help, sick people with no
Page 58 and 59: The Facts: • The United States ha
Page 60 and 61: that the reduction in offending doe
Page 64 and 65: What is Cruel and Unusual Punishmen
Page 66 and 67: prison population and led to scanda
Page 70 and 71: More Imprisonment, Higher Costs Con
Page 72 and 73: Increased Availability and Use of I
Page 74 and 75: Penalties Do Not Match Roles The fe
Page 76 and 77: during the course of an investigati
Page 78 and 79: Conclusion The federal government h
Page 80 and 81:
Commission, http://www.ussc.gov/sit
Page 82 and 83:
to treatment. Very large changes in
Page 84 and 85:
the analysis are required for manda
Page 86 and 87:
which they can use to strong-arm de
Page 88 and 89:
Column: 5 charts show why mandatory
Page 90 and 91:
Worldwide incarceration rates. At 6
Page 92 and 93:
Incarceration has had a limited imp
Page 94 and 95:
The Facts: • The United States ha
Page 96 and 97:
decrease juvenile arrest rates. Eva
Page 98 and 99:
een introduced since the mid-1990s,
Page 100 and 101:
Attempts To Change The Disparity Le
Page 102 and 103:
Trafficking Act of 2007 (H.R. 4545)
Page 104 and 105:
• announce all guidelines, policy
Page 106 and 107:
Page 106 of 174
Page 108 and 109:
family, they will suffer from the p
Page 110 and 111:
Residential Drug Abuse Program help
Page 112 and 113:
Page 112 of 174
Page 114 and 115:
Notes _____________________________
Page 116 and 117:
Page 116 of 174
Page 118 and 119:
Page 118 of 174
Page 120 and 121:
Page 120 of 174
Page 122 and 123:
Page 122 of 174
Page 124 and 125:
Page 124 of 174
Page 126 and 127:
Page 126 of 174
Page 128 and 129:
Page 128 of 174
Page 130 and 131:
Page 130 of 174
Page 132 and 133:
Page 132 of 174
Page 134 and 135:
Page 134 of 174
Page 136 and 137:
Page 136 of 174
Page 138 and 139:
Page 138 of 174
Page 140 and 141:
Page 140 of 174
Page 142 and 143:
Page 142 of 174
Page 144 and 145:
Page 144 of 174
Page 146 and 147:
Page 146 of 174
Page 148 and 149:
Page 148 of 174
Page 150 and 151:
Advocacy Foundation Publishers The
Page 152 and 153:
XVI for Drug-Free Communities Landm
Page 154 and 155:
Vol. VIII 2022 ComeUnity ReEngineer
Page 156 and 157:
Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitaliz
Page 158 and 159:
The e-Advocate Monthly Review 2018
Page 160 and 161:
2021 Biblically Responsible Investi
Page 162 and 163:
The e-Advocate Quarterly Special Ed
Page 164 and 165:
Legal Missions International Page 1
Page 166 and 167:
Vol. V 2019 XVII Russia Q-1 2019 XV
Page 168 and 169:
The e-Advocate Newsletter Genesis o
Page 170 and 171:
Extras The Nonprofit Advisors Group
Page 172 and 173:
About The Author John C (Jack) John
Page 174:
Page 174 of 174
show all

The Cost Ineffectiveness of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing In The U.S.

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?