Mandatory minimum sentences emerged in early American history as a proactive way to deter violent and rigorous crimes such as homicides, rape, and treason. Mandatory minimum sentences refer to fixed penalties and laws for offenders who commit particular crimes. These federal laws are set by Congress and do not allow judges to impose a sentence lower than what has been established. These sentences served the purpose of diminishing unlimited judge discretion and consequently lead to the limitation and even elimination of judicial discretion in sentencing. For example, an individual caught with or selling 50 grams of crack cocaine will automatically receive a 10-year federal mandatory sentence, regardless if they had no prior convictions or if
…show more content…
Van Gundy (2016) also examines the numerous amounts of human rights violations that occur from keeping so many inmates in prison for longer periods of time. Mass incarceration results in dangerous levels of overcrowding, disease control, increasing suicide rates within inmates, and promote social and economic problems within families. (Van Gundy, 2016). Many prions reach maximum capacity, children are left without parent figures, and create public health concerns. Imprisoning non-risk offenders that might not reoffend only hurts the corrections system.
The effect of mass incarceration on racial minorities. Mass incarceration accounts for injustices for minorities. According to Van Gundy (2016), “while African Americans and Hispanic Americans compromise around 25 percent of the American populations, they are 58 percent of the prison population” (p. 107). But where is this disparity coming from? A study by Schlesinger (2011), indicates that because mandatory sentences increase the severity of punishments that blacks are more likely to be arrested in, they increase racial disparities in prison admission rates (p. …show more content…
Applying mandatory minimum sentences is assumed to be the best way to reduce disparities, since a single individual will no longer have the power to control sentencing. As mentioned earlier, this can also be connected to the opposition to plea-bargaining discretion. It is inedible to say that prosecutors amplify great power in the courtroom within the plea-bargaining and acquiring cases process. Let’s take into consideration, hypothetically, that prosecutorial discretion becomes more powerful with the addition of mandatory sentences in a county. In this event, even if there is a shift of powers among the courtroom work group, Cole (2004) explains how controlled and limited their power actually is. Cole (2004) explains, “…the prosecutor is able to exercise his discretionary powers only within the network of exchange relationships” (p.188). Advocates associate power with judges, but not with prosecutors. If it assumed that prosecutorial discretion is also an issue, why is there a pavement being carved for more? Would there not be an addition of unlimited power in the courthouse
Van Gundy (2016) also examines the numerous amounts of human rights violations that occur from keeping so many inmates in prison for longer periods of time. Mass incarceration results in dangerous levels of overcrowding, disease control, increasing suicide rates within inmates, and promote social and economic problems within families. (Van Gundy, 2016). Many prions reach maximum capacity, children are left without parent figures, and create public health concerns. Imprisoning non-risk offenders that might not reoffend only hurts the corrections system.
The effect of mass incarceration on racial minorities. Mass incarceration accounts for injustices for minorities. According to Van Gundy (2016), “while African Americans and Hispanic Americans compromise around 25 percent of the American populations, they are 58 percent of the prison population” (p. 107). But where is this disparity coming from? A study by Schlesinger (2011), indicates that because mandatory sentences increase the severity of punishments that blacks are more likely to be arrested in, they increase racial disparities in prison admission rates (p. …show more content…
Applying mandatory minimum sentences is assumed to be the best way to reduce disparities, since a single individual will no longer have the power to control sentencing. As mentioned earlier, this can also be connected to the opposition to plea-bargaining discretion. It is inedible to say that prosecutors amplify great power in the courtroom within the plea-bargaining and acquiring cases process. Let’s take into consideration, hypothetically, that prosecutorial discretion becomes more powerful with the addition of mandatory sentences in a county. In this event, even if there is a shift of powers among the courtroom work group, Cole (2004) explains how controlled and limited their power actually is. Cole (2004) explains, “…the prosecutor is able to exercise his discretionary powers only within the network of exchange relationships” (p.188). Advocates associate power with judges, but not with prosecutors. If it assumed that prosecutorial discretion is also an issue, why is there a pavement being carved for more? Would there not be an addition of unlimited power in the courthouse