Arguments Against Mandatory Sentencing

In 2008, approximately one in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States were either behind bars or being monitored (on probation and parole). From 1978 to 2014, our prison population has risen 408%, partially as a result of mandatory sentencing that came about during the "War on Drugs." Mandatory minimum sentences take away the freedom of judges in sentencing, who are bound by statute to place the convicted behind bars. Existing statutes don’t allow judges to hand down alternative punishments, nor give them the option to prescribe treatment instead.
Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1951. The acts made a first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses. With the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of …show more content…
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 United States Judicial committee hearing, a Utah Judge described mandatory sentencing as 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 a 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