The Debate on the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Guidelines
Brief History
During the mid-20th century, the federal court rulings on felonies under the existing laws provided the judges with unlimited discretion, having no clear guidelines on what was to be done. The mandatory minimum punishments for severe federal offenses were outdated and could not be used to in the modern-day trials. Under the 1790 Crimes Act, the minimum sentence for treason, murder, or forgery of government securities was death. However, in the years that followed, the members of the legal community argued that this practice bring about disparities in the manner that the judges’ sentences similar cases (Batey, 2002). As it would appear later on, this criticism became the …show more content…
These guidelines, together with mandatory minimums, were seen as leading to longer sentences. In 2003, an amendment was proposed, seeking to rewrite all the guidelines for minimum sentencing. At the moment, the guidelines used are meant to uphold the Sixth Amendment and ensure that criminal offences are punished correctly (Starr, 2013).
Benefits to the American people
The amendments to the law over the years have proved to be beneficial to the American people. Other than its intent to provide
MANDATORY GUIDELINES3 fair sentences for the offences committed, the elimination the mandatory minimum sentences would ensure that the number of people incarcerated is lowered (Dahl, 2014). It would ensure that the minority groups do not feel targeted, and that there are fewer people from these particular groups that get harsh sentences for first-time …show more content…
Much of the debate revolves around the issue of the effectiveness of using mandatory sentencing as a weapon against capital offences (DeGabrielle, 2013). The distinction between ‘serious’ and ‘minor’ offences in the justice system has created a variety of opinions as to whether or not the country should eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences. The opponents of such reforms argue that the presence of harsh punishments would ensure that crime levels remain low, as people are discouraged from committing such offences (Barkow, 2012). However, this may create a bias in the justice system since it would incarcerate people of certain minority groups that have a higher prevalence of crime or drug-related crimes.
In the wake of the unfairness that may arise from mandatory minimum sentencing, the Justice Safety Valve Act 2015 was proposed to restore proportionality and rationality in federal case sentencing. A safety valve refers to an exception to the mandatory sentencing laws, where a judge may provide a sentence below the mandatory minimum term if certain conditions are met (Dahl, 2014). It would allow less harsh penalties only if doing so would not jeopardize the public’s safety. Civil rights activists have already shown their support for this bill as it provides a leeway for minor offences to have less severe
Brief History
During the mid-20th century, the federal court rulings on felonies under the existing laws provided the judges with unlimited discretion, having no clear guidelines on what was to be done. The mandatory minimum punishments for severe federal offenses were outdated and could not be used to in the modern-day trials. Under the 1790 Crimes Act, the minimum sentence for treason, murder, or forgery of government securities was death. However, in the years that followed, the members of the legal community argued that this practice bring about disparities in the manner that the judges’ sentences similar cases (Batey, 2002). As it would appear later on, this criticism became the …show more content…
These guidelines, together with mandatory minimums, were seen as leading to longer sentences. In 2003, an amendment was proposed, seeking to rewrite all the guidelines for minimum sentencing. At the moment, the guidelines used are meant to uphold the Sixth Amendment and ensure that criminal offences are punished correctly (Starr, 2013).
Benefits to the American people
The amendments to the law over the years have proved to be beneficial to the American people. Other than its intent to provide
MANDATORY GUIDELINES3 fair sentences for the offences committed, the elimination the mandatory minimum sentences would ensure that the number of people incarcerated is lowered (Dahl, 2014). It would ensure that the minority groups do not feel targeted, and that there are fewer people from these particular groups that get harsh sentences for first-time …show more content…
Much of the debate revolves around the issue of the effectiveness of using mandatory sentencing as a weapon against capital offences (DeGabrielle, 2013). The distinction between ‘serious’ and ‘minor’ offences in the justice system has created a variety of opinions as to whether or not the country should eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences. The opponents of such reforms argue that the presence of harsh punishments would ensure that crime levels remain low, as people are discouraged from committing such offences (Barkow, 2012). However, this may create a bias in the justice system since it would incarcerate people of certain minority groups that have a higher prevalence of crime or drug-related crimes.
In the wake of the unfairness that may arise from mandatory minimum sentencing, the Justice Safety Valve Act 2015 was proposed to restore proportionality and rationality in federal case sentencing. A safety valve refers to an exception to the mandatory sentencing laws, where a judge may provide a sentence below the mandatory minimum term if certain conditions are met (Dahl, 2014). It would allow less harsh penalties only if doing so would not jeopardize the public’s safety. Civil rights activists have already shown their support for this bill as it provides a leeway for minor offences to have less severe