Should Minimum Sentencing Be Mandatory

Being sent to prison and serving any sort of sentence is a very serious thing. Because so much is lost and taken, you lose your identity and become a number. They take your property seal it up and put it away until you are released. You are kept in a 6 by 8 foot cell, which they can keep you locked up in for 21 days straight if they feel like you are a threat to yourself or others. A crime is a crime, but all crimes vary, so why create a law that makes any person caught violating a certain law serve a mandatory sentence. The mandatory minimum sentencing states that anyone caught with any amount, small or large, of a controlled substance in including cocaine, heroin or cannabis must serve a mandatory of 2 years with a maximum of 5 if it is their first offence. No matter how big or small, well there is a very big difference between a teenage kid who got caught smoking cannabis in his room and his parents called the cops to scare him, and an older man who is smuggling large amounts of cocaine across a state border. …show more content…
Their intent was to come up with a law that had a pre-determined amount of days to be served. They called this determinate sentencing and with this sentencing there is no possibility of parole for the person, who is convicted using the guidelines of the Mandatory minimum sentencing, but there is a silver lining; the convict’s sentence can be reduced with good behavior. With determinate sentencing came more and more guidelines to control and keep the federal structure together and keep it rational. Their guidelines follow guidelines of their own, these second guidelines are based on the offender’s back ground history and how serious the crime is. Depending on these two things will determine the amount of time that is recommended. These were created to eliminate judicial discrimination, and or