Given the weight of these explored policy initiatives as well as the eye opening figures that they consequently produced, justice system onlookers might label such with a term known as overcriminalization. By definition, Overcriminalization is a neologism used to describe the overuse and misuse of the criminal law, oftentimes to punish conduct that society traditionally would not deem morally blameworthy. According to Larkin in his article titled Public Choice Theory and Overcriminalization, the concept of overcriminalization “is less a problem with the substantive criminal law than it is with the lawmaking process”. Given the substantiality of the war on crime in the 80’s and 90’s, new legislation opened the door to mass incarceration in exchange
…show more content…
Although since its conception, mandatory minimums have made significant progress in curbing crime, the questions as to whether the benefits outweigh the consequence is still out for debate for a few reasons. To begin, it is peculiarly unreasonable to treat a non-violent first time offender the same as a repeat violent offender given the circumstance. A good example can be traced back to a Florida father of two teenage girls by the name of Lee Wollard who is currently serving a 20 year prison sentence in a Florida prison epitomizes the claim that the concept of federally sponsored mandatory minimum sentencing is a social injustice. To provide background, Lee Wollard was a family man with a Master’s degree and a occupation at Florida’s Sea World. Easily assumed the unlikely subject of an extended prison sentence following an incident in what Wollard claims was an attempt to protect the sanctity of his home, and the safety of his youngest daughter. In short, Wollard’s youngest daughter became mixed up with 17 year old troubled teenager who one night took things over the edge. On May 14, 2008, Wollard awoke from a nap …show more content…
Upon making entry into his daughter’s room, he identified the daughter’s troubled boyfriend attacking his daughter. Upon entry, according to Wollard, the 17 year old then lunged at Wollard and punched a fist sized hole into the wall in attempts to intimidate him. Wollard quickly responded by firing a warning shot into the wall followed by a grave warning to the teen, that “the next one will be between the eyes”. The teen then quickly came to his senses and hurried out of the residency in what seemingly was the end of the dispute, until police arrived. Wollard was charged with discharging a weapon into a wall, aggravated assault, and child endangerment with lead to a full conviction only one year later. As a result, the Judge sentenced him to 20 years in a Florida state prison which of course is the mandatory minimum simply because a conviction of aggravated assault involving a firearm entails an automatic 20 year sentence. A sentence in which the Florida Judge admitted to Wollard that he would not be receiving, if he wasn’t obligated under oath to carry out such sentencing. As a result, this case remains as one among thousands of similar circumstances where the conviction embodies the irrationality of mandatory minimum sentencing. In such cases, it is arguable that objective reasonableness contests that
Although since its conception, mandatory minimums have made significant progress in curbing crime, the questions as to whether the benefits outweigh the consequence is still out for debate for a few reasons. To begin, it is peculiarly unreasonable to treat a non-violent first time offender the same as a repeat violent offender given the circumstance. A good example can be traced back to a Florida father of two teenage girls by the name of Lee Wollard who is currently serving a 20 year prison sentence in a Florida prison epitomizes the claim that the concept of federally sponsored mandatory minimum sentencing is a social injustice. To provide background, Lee Wollard was a family man with a Master’s degree and a occupation at Florida’s Sea World. Easily assumed the unlikely subject of an extended prison sentence following an incident in what Wollard claims was an attempt to protect the sanctity of his home, and the safety of his youngest daughter. In short, Wollard’s youngest daughter became mixed up with 17 year old troubled teenager who one night took things over the edge. On May 14, 2008, Wollard awoke from a nap …show more content…
Upon making entry into his daughter’s room, he identified the daughter’s troubled boyfriend attacking his daughter. Upon entry, according to Wollard, the 17 year old then lunged at Wollard and punched a fist sized hole into the wall in attempts to intimidate him. Wollard quickly responded by firing a warning shot into the wall followed by a grave warning to the teen, that “the next one will be between the eyes”. The teen then quickly came to his senses and hurried out of the residency in what seemingly was the end of the dispute, until police arrived. Wollard was charged with discharging a weapon into a wall, aggravated assault, and child endangerment with lead to a full conviction only one year later. As a result, the Judge sentenced him to 20 years in a Florida state prison which of course is the mandatory minimum simply because a conviction of aggravated assault involving a firearm entails an automatic 20 year sentence. A sentence in which the Florida Judge admitted to Wollard that he would not be receiving, if he wasn’t obligated under oath to carry out such sentencing. As a result, this case remains as one among thousands of similar circumstances where the conviction embodies the irrationality of mandatory minimum sentencing. In such cases, it is arguable that objective reasonableness contests that