Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Case Study

On October 24 1993 a twelve year old Tracy Latimer suffering from a severe form of cerebral palsy was killed by her father out of compassion. The father, Robert Latimer was then sentenced to the full twenty-five years in prison because mandatory minimum sentencing was barring any reduction to the punishment. Regardless of the circumstances, mandatory minimums set standards in sentencing that will prohibit any punishment lower than the specified level. Despite Robert’s sympathetic intentions he received a severe penalty for his actions. It was worried that if Robert managed to receive a lesser punishment other criminals would argue the validity of their sentence as well ( 'Compassionate homicide ': The law and Robert Latimer, 2010). Contextual …show more content…
Plea bargaining is a widely used tool to wrap up cases quickly and efficiently. However, there is going to be no plea bargaining in a case when a defendant is not rewarded for pleading guilty. There is no incentive in pleading guilty when you are going to receive a sizeable prison sentence regardless of whether you admit to committing the crime or not. Trials are costly procedures and it would save the Canadian taxpayers a substantial amount of money if the trial could be averted. Mandatory minimum sentencing instead plays a direct role in expanding the number of cases that will go to trial (Frost, 2006). Mandatory minimum sentencing also indirectly prevents compromise in sentencing. This is because with minimum sentencing either the defendant receives full punishment for the crime or they come clean. Due to this the defendant will put up stronger resistance against the prosecution because their intent is to come clean instead of compromising for a smaller punishment (Mueller, 1992). This will lead to prosecution teams across the country demanding greater amounts of funds to successfully win cases against defendants. Long-term sentences have a costly impact on the judicial process. By removing the incentive to plead guilty through mandatory minimums the Canadian government will be costing itself an enormous sum of …show more content…
Prison expenses expand with mandatory minimum sentencing because inmates will be retained for greater periods of time. The incentive of pleading guilty is lost in many cases because there is a specified punishment length. Mandatory minimum sentencing does not live up to it’s goal of deterring crime meaning that there is no financial relief to be found in the policy. It has been proven that there is a significantly higher chance that a prisoner will return to federal corrections if they served a lengthier term of confinement. Mandatory minimum sentencing increases many terms of imprisonment leading to a rise in recidivism rates. It is both unsustainable and ineffective to spend such extreme amounts of money on federal corrections because of mandatory minimums. There are many private and public organizations that could benefit from increased funding, such as community projects in low-income neighborhood with high crime rates. Especially with Canada’s federal debt continuing to rise it is critical that the government allocates funds wisely. Mandatory minimum is a policy that incurs huge unnecessary costs in the judicial system. It would be sensible for the Canadian government to cut pricey programs like mandatory minimum sentencing as a method to save money. The immense financial cost of mandatory minimum sentencing certainly produces the question, “should we