In the most recent couple of years the verbal confrontation about whether obligatory sentencing ought to be nullified, and judges utilizing their own carefulness ought to happen has turned into a well known dialog in the United States. I see upsides and downsides for both sides. Mandatory least have filled the correctional facilites and penitentiaries with an excess of peaceful, first time guilty parties which brings about prison/jail packing and more obligation. President Obama expressed in a discourse "We have to lower long obligatory least sentences or dispose of them totally. " Opponents of compulsory least sentences contend that: Minority litigants are excessively detained contrasted with Caucasian respondents under the compulsory least…
A jury may also exercise the sentencing guidelines are usually imposed by the judge in most cases, but sentencing or it can be mandated by a statue; such as, mandatory prison sentence for certain crimes. There are various forms of sentences that are to be reviewed: concurrent and consecutive sentences, good time, sentencing sanctions, sentencing models, indeterminate sentences, determine sentences, structured sentences, feral sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum sentences, and that of the three-strikes laws. The issue with concurrent and consecutive sentences is that concurrent sentences allow for than one sentence to be served at the same time as the others, while consecutive sentences only allow for one sentence to be served at a time, this is good in the case that there…
I believe that by making some changes to the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines would in the long run make our justice system better able to serve the people. I know many of you, like I believe there should be no change to the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, but have you or I for that matter really thought through what that means for people like Lee Wollard or Trina Garnett? Lee Wollard didn’t hurt the young man, he protected his daughter and family, yet is spending twenty years behind bars because he fired a warning shot into his home. Trina Garnett was an abused teenager with a mental illness that needed medical care not sent to prison.…
According to the Sentencing Project, which is a non-profit organization that promotes reduced reliance on incarceration and increased use of more effective alternatives to deal with crime, states that the United States correctional system of the past thirty years has been characterized by a population increasing the exponentially in response to changes in policy towards mandatory minimum and determinate sentencing (Sentencing). In other words, individuals convicted of a crime today are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration and spend longer terms in prison, than their counterparts in previous decades (Sentencing). In 2002, state and federal prison and local jail populations exceeded 2 million, a trend that has contributed to prison overcrowding and has overwhelmed state governments with the burden of funding this rapidly expanding penal system (Sentencing). These changes in policy have resulted in the reality that prisons today are filled with large numbers of non-violent and drug…
Due to the implications of Reagan's War on Drugs laws, drug courts have demonstrated and proven to reduce recidivism for offenders who abuse substances. To deter overcrowding in the prisons, Researcher Messer has found that drug courts can be instrumental in deterring offenders from reoffending. It is surprising that “85% of offenders incarcerated require substance abuse treatment” (Messer, 2016). Drug courts allow offenders to “attain important skills/ideas, improve relationships with family and children, a general educational development certificate, a driver’s license, and/or gainful employment” (Messer, 2016). Researcher Shaffer studied over “80 drug courts and found recidivism rates of 46% for those who participated in drug court programming”…
The research attempts to ascertain the impact that mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines have had on the criminal justice system as a whole in the United States. With its advent, mandatory minimum sentences have arguably had an economic impact on the justice system, particularly in corrections systems. Due to the fact that there are now more people being incarcerated for longer periods because of these sentencing guidelines, prisons are bearing an increasing cost for housing these inmates. Another factor that the research looks into is the inequities that are inherent when sentencing a non-violent offender with a sentence that is as stringent if not more so than those who have committed violent felonies. The repercussions these guidelines…
In the deal generated between some of the Senate’s most conservative and liberal members, judges would have the discretion to give sentences below the mandatory minimum for nonviolent drug offenders. Some current inmates could get their sentences reduced by as much as 25 percent by taking part in rehabilitation programs, if they are deemed a low risk to offend again. If this bill is passed, it will eliminate mandatory life sentences for three-time, nonviolent offenders. Violent offenders, sex offenders, inmates convicted of terrorism charges, and members of organized crime syndicates, and major fraud offenders would be excluded from this deal. The Senators’ goals include increasing fairness, decreasing recidivism, and controlling rising prison…
In the United States, the use of mandatory minimums became commonplace with support from both sides of the political spectrum. With public support for tough laws, these sentencing minimums were enacted across the country due to increasing crime rates. However, in certain states, lawmakers and taxpayers are beginning to see that these laws cost more than they help. In Tallahassee, Florida, a twenty-five-year drug sentence for selling thirty-five pills for $300 will cost taxpayers an average of $18,064 per year, or $451,600 by the time the offender is released (Klas, 2017). Others will argue that mandatory minimums increase sentencing disparity because these do not follow federal sentencing guidelines.…
In the 1970’s most states based the time someone spent in prison using indeterminate sentencing. This meant that someone could be sentenced to prison without any definite time being set when sentencing. After a while states started to have fixed prison terms or determinate sentencing. Because of this, a vast amount of people were only spending a couple of years in prison for violent crimes and being released for good behavior. To combat this mandatory minimum sentence emerged.…
As many of you already know the United States has the highest percentage of its population behind bars compared to any other country. This may be related to the fact that a majority of petty crimes require mandatory sentencing. Politicians such as District Attorney Dan Conley believe that mandatory sentencing is an efficient way to protect the population from corrupt individuals as well as decreasing crime rates. However, housing all of these individuals is not cheap, the funding for this endeavor is taken directly from the taxes all of us have to pay. While I agree that petty crime offenders should compensate in some way for their crimes, further destroying their lives is not the answer.…
During Clinton’s administration, twenty-four states adopted the 3-strikes law, mandating that individuals convicted of three violent felonies be automatically sentenced to life without parole. Also, under Clinton, The Crime Bill of 1994 expanded the federal death penalty and gushed money into the U.S.’s incarceration system, providing new financial incentives to increase the average time that individuals serve (Mauer 62-63). This idea, that tough sentences meant decreased crime, ironically led to prison populations growing at a rate three times that of the United States, which led to the 2.3 million people incarcerated today (Mauer 72). By increasing the frequency of the death penalty and the average amount of time that people spend in jail, incarcerated people are either being denied their right to live, a restriction that clearly pertains to the body, or their right to live in physical freedom after release from serving an appropriate sentence…
President Nixon declared a “war on drugs”, and increased the size of federal drug control agencies. To help combat the use of drugs, mandatory sentencing was implemented, which granted for a first time offense a minimum sentence of 5 years in a federal prison. By the Reagan presidency, the number of non-violent drug offenders imprisoned skyrocketed from 50,000 to over 400,000 by 1997 (“A Brief History of the Drug war”). As a result of the incarcerations many families have been left broken. Fathers have been separated from their children, and sons and daughters have been taken away and placed in prisons instead of…
The phrases non-custodial sentence, community sentencing and alternative sentencing are commonly used interchangeably to refer to the same concept. Community sentencing is phrase used in criminal justice to punish offenders that have been convicted without using either capital punishment. Community sentencing is subdivided into different categories such. The first type of community sentencing is compulsory work where offenders are required to work for a local community for up to 300 hours by performing tasks such as; removing graffiti from buildings and collecting litter. The second type of community sentencing involves taking the offender through a series of programs that can change his behavior.…
In the last 40 years, incarceration in the United States has reached epidemic proportions. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world; we hold 5% of the world’s population, but house 25% of the world’s prisoners (Kelly 2015). The use of incarceration has gradually become a more acceptable and more used form of punishment. As a result, our prison population is overflowing with offenders ranging from petty theft criminals to violent offenders. As cited in the textbook, purposes of our justice system should be retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, (Clear, Reisig, & Cole 2016, p.72-73) but we focus far too much on punishment first and rehabilitation second, if ever.…
Once balance is restored, the chances of the prisoner re-offending are diminished (Inayatullah, 2011). In contrast, there is the punishment model. Inayatullah (2011) states that the argument is that all the rights are given to the offender and the victim has none. Therefore in this approach, the best way to reduce present day and future crimes is to keep serious offenders in jail. Evidence shows that twenty-five percent of criminal activity can be reduced by lengthy prison sentences.…