Mandatory Minimum Sentence is one policy of criminal justice in the United States of America that sparks controversy. While some people feel that it is justifiable for correctional reasons, others are of the feeling that it is inappropriate. Opponents of the policy base their argument on its withdrawal of logic on the part of the judge. In addition, they argue that it does not lead to the achievement of the intended correctional and rehabilitation purpose among the victims. This paper looks at some of the arguments by the proponents as well as the opponents of the policy.
The proponents argue that mandatory minimum sentence serves justice to criminals. As such, it discourages any involvement in criminal activities for fear of receiving the sentence. In their view, the policy perfectly serves the role of instilling fear to potential criminals, therefore, discouraging the participation in criminal activities. Saris (2015) suggests that many persons would have engaged in crime had a court system failed to exist. To this end, proponents feel that it leads to social order.
Other that scaring potential criminals, the policy, they feel, makes contribution towards the rehabilitation of criminals. The mandatory sentence represents an opportunity to correct the criminals involved for the better. Saris (2015) suggests that the sentence goes a long way in effecting a victim’s behavior change regardless of whether he was actively involved in the purported crime or not. The writer, further, observes that the withdrawal from the society of the persons alleged to have committed crimes of high magnitude sustains order.
The opponents, on the other hand, feel that the reasons brought forward by the proponents are extremely weak and that they do not represent the true picture of the associated events. To begin with, they argue that the policy denies the judge(s) the opportunity and space for the application of logic and reason. As such, an accused person may end up in prison even if a judge finds compelling reasons to vindicate him (Casell, & Luna, 2011). To this end, opponents conclude that the policy amounts to a law that falls short of logic. In general, opponents discredit the policy on account of the possibility to sentence a potentially innocent suspect.
Other than the elimination of the room for logic, opponents argue that the policy contributes to racial differences in sentencing. The law is seen to target the African-Americans unfairly. The reason could be that many of the crimes that attract the sentence involve the said group of Americans. A major crime that attracts the sentence is drug trafficking. Opponents feel that the policy does not bring the requisite criminals to book. The observation is that while the real business of drugs is carried out by white Americans, the largest population of prisoners serving mandatory minimum sentence on drug related charges are African-Americans (Yang, 2015). The conclusion becomes that the policy unfairly targets certain American races and it should, therefore, be reconsidered and reviewed.
The other argument brought up by the opponents of mandatory minimum sentence is that it has the potential for breeding hardcore criminals. So may be the case when an innocent citizen is convicted. The other case that may lead to potential radicalization would be the conviction of a person who played the role of mere facilitation of a criminal act. Such a person may cry foul over imprisonment with the real executors of the crime getting away with it. Matters would even be worse if the perpetrators walk free while a fairly innocent man is convicted. In such a case, it is expected that the victim will tend to be a criminal for lack of fairness in the policy and the ruling (Larkin & Bernick, 2014). To this end, the opponents feel that the policy does more harm than good in the administration of justice in criminal system.
The policy has regularly been accused for the unwarranted overcrowding in prisons in the United States. The overcrowding is due to the exceptionally high number of prisoners who would otherwise be out of prison had the judges reserved the right to application of logic in their cases. Larkin and Bernick (2014) observe that a good number of American prisoners are petty offenders who have fallen victims to mandatory minimum sentence. The condition in many prisons does not offer the opportunity for rehabilitation and correction of the inmates. Instead, it even leads to overstretching of the existing social amenities in the prisons. Instead of achieving the purpose of effecting behavioral change in the prisoners, the prisons end up exposing the prisoners to health risks. The prisoners are likely to suffer from communicable diseases such as Tuberculosis and water-borne diseases. In brief, the policy potentially leads to more problems than solutions to the challenge of crime.
The other ground on which opponents dismiss mandatory minimum sentence is that it leads to unnecessary expenditure on efforts that do not bear fruits. Research shows that American taxpayer contributes heavily to the sustenance of prisoners, parting with at least $ 39 billion on yearly basis. The sustenance becomes even harder with the policy confining suspects to prisons while logic demanded that they be elsewhere contributing to economic growth (Nauman, 2013). The situation is made worse by the realization that the correctional efforts hardly materialize in production of responsible citizens. Other than the expenditure, the confinement to prison of a productive workforce adversely affects production in the economy. As such, opponents argue that the law ought to be scrapped to save the taxpayer the unnecessary cost of maintaining prisons. The amount saved, they argue, could be put to more productive use such as industrialization or the maintenance of infrastructure.
In conclusion, the proponents as well as the opponents hold and stand with their views for or against the mandatory minimum sentence. The proponents seem to have fewer grounds for their support. They point to the effect of the policy to scare potential criminals and service of justice. The opponents, on the other hand, present a longer list of grounds against the policy. They cite the denial of power to judge, racial unfairness, potential radicalization of convicts, congestion, and unwarranted expenditure by the taxpayers on sustenance of prisons.
References
Cassell, P. G., & Luna, E. (2011). Sense and sensibility in mandatory minimum sentencing. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 23(3), 219-227.
Larkin, P., & Bernick, E. (2014). Reconsidering mandatory minimum sentences: the arguments for and against potential reforms. The Heritage Foundation.
Nauman, S. (2013). Brown v. Plata: Renewing the Call to End Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. Fla. L. Rev., 65, 855.
Saris, P. B. (2015). A generational shift for federal drug sentences. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 52, 1.
Yang, C. S. (2015). Free at last? Judicial discretion and racial disparities in federal sentencing. The Journal of Legal Studies, 44(1), 75-111.
Val_cast98
Draft2.docx
0
