Crime control and public policy

A description of the problem

Mandatory minimum sentence is a statute of the criminal law of the United States of America. It is handed to serious crime convicts and violent offenders. It provides that a convicted criminal should serve a specific-length sentence before they can qualify for release or parole. Though it is applied, the statute poses certain serious problems to the effective and impartial administration of justice. One of the shortcomings of the statute is that it limits the role of a judge in sentencing. Under the statute, a judge lacks the discretion to tailor a sentence to facts specific to a given case (Larkin, & Bernick, 2014). As such, an accessory in a crime might receive the same sentence as the ring leader of an operation. The other problem with the statute is that it is often used to target specific groups of people. Quite often, charges that attract the most extensive mandatory sentences affect minority groups. Further, the provision is used for coercion. The threat of possible conviction is often used by law enforcers as a tool for interviews. However, coercion raises doubts of information extracted. The other problem with the law is that it does not provide room for extenuating circumstances that would otherwise substitute a punishment with a lesser one (United States Sentencing Commission, 2012). Above all, the statute is not always used in cases of violent crime. At one point, it has been used for controlling the amount of ammunition held in a crime even in circumstances when the gun is not used to commit a crime.

The effects of the problem

Mandatory minimum sentences lead to some glaring adverse effects to the states, the perpetrators, and the course of justice. One of the negative consequences of the statute is overcrowding in American prisons. The situation leads to poor nutrition, hygiene, and ventilation in prisons. In addition, prisoners have complained of lack of basic necessities like water and lack of adequate exercise facilities. The other adverse effect of the law is that it leads to disproportionately high populations of black prisoners. Though the majority of illicit drug dealers and users are white, up to three-quarters of all drug offense prisoners are Latino or African American (Casell, & Luna, 2011). Other than overcrowding and disproportionate populations in prison, the statute lessens prison- based rehabilitation owing to radicalization of convicts who feel they were unfairly targeted. Such prisoners are likely to reoffend with an offense of greater intensity. Further, overcrowding renders rehabilitation difficult. Above all, the statute carries with it a high cost to taxpayers. As an illustration, the United States features in the top five nations for high incarceration rates globally (Nauman, 2013). In addition, study shows that the aggregate cost of maintaining prisons in forty states stands at $39 billion annually. Mandatory minimum sentence has the effect of extending the length of time prisoners remain in prison implying additional costs.

Introduction of the topic of investigation

Sound, logical, and fair process of prosecution through conviction or acquittal and devoid of mandatory minimum sentences would do more good than harm. Such a provision grants judges their traditional and proper authority to give a thought into the actual circumstances of a crime. Further, the judge gets the chance to evaluate the individual characteristics of the defendant (Cardozo, 2010). The other benefit of such a provision is that it allows for plea bargains. As such, suspects who are “less guilty” enjoy the benefit of facing less serious offense, a scenario that translates to avoidance of messy trials that hold the potential to injure their reputation. Besides, such matters get resolved faster. As an illustration, application of the amended law would lead to fewer convictions of federal drug defendants since a vast majority of them are non-violent (Mauer, 2010). Further, the problem of overcrowding would successfully be solved in American prisons. Since judges know the population of real drug dealers and users, the situation of disproportionately high population of minority groups in prison would be gradually negated.

This paper examines various policy options that exist to solve the problems of mandatory minimum sentences. For accurate and informed choice of the best alternative option, research is carried out. The methods of the research, consisting of participants and procedures, are provided. A conclusion follows. It gives a summary of the problem, research activities, and the findings. For provision of the way forward, policy recommendations are made. The paper ends with a list of alphabetically arranged materials to which reference was made in writing of the paper.

References

Cassell, P. G., & Luna, E. (2011). Sense and sensibility in mandatory minimum sentencing. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 23(3), 219-227.

Cardozo, B. N. (2010). The nature of the judicial process. Quid Pro Books.

Larkin, P., & Bernick, E. (2014). Reconsidering mandatory minimum sentences: the arguments for and against potential reforms. The Heritage Foundation.

Mauer, M. (2010). The impact of mandatory minimum penalties in federal sentencing. Judicature, 94, 6.

Nauman, S. (2013). Brown v. Plata: Renewing the Call to End Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. Fla. L. Rev., 65, 855.

United States Sentencing Commission. (2012). report to congress: mandatory minimum Penalties in the Federal criminal Justice System. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24(3), 185-192.