JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 2
Abstract
This article should provide an analysis and commentary on a journal paper titled "A
Commentary on Judicial Discretion, Mandatory Minimums, and Sentencing Reform" that was
prepared and submitted by Jelani Jefferson Exum. The use of mandatory minimum sentences at
the federal level is the topic of discussion in this article. Following the decision in United States
v. Booker, this article examines how the mandatory minimum sentence has changed as a result of
the case and provides an analysis on how it should be changed moving forward.
Keywords: Mandatory minimum sentencing, labeling effect, replacing effect, Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984.
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 3
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
The imposition of mandatory minimum sentences in the United States is widely seen as a
primary contributor to the dramatic increase in the country's incarceration rate that has taken
place over the last three decades. Following the enactment of the bipartisan Sentencing Reform
Act of 1984 (SRA), the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were created to provide an emphasis on
justice, consistency, retribution, incapacitation, and deterrent in the judicial system's application
of sentences (G.T. Lowenthal, 1993). In hindsight, the imposition of mandatory minimum
sentences might well have led to the imposition of sentences that were excessively lengthy and
resulted to the fact that our judicial system did not achieve any of the derived effects that the
SRA had hoped to achieve.
The essay "A Commentary on Judicial Discretion, Mandatory Minimums, and
Sentencing Reform" written by Jelani Jefferson Exum includes not only the facts but also the
opinions of the author. It has also prompted many people to conclude that these mandatory
minimum sentences have also been a failure, and it has also caused many others to advise
lawmakers to not repeat the same errors when sentencing reform is inevitably implemented in the
future.
The Author
Jelani Jefferson Exum is a well-known specialist in the field of sentencing process and
law in the United States. Before entering the academic world, Dean Jefferson Exum worked as a
law clerk for the Honorable James L. Dennis, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. Both of these judges are now members of the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In 2019, Dean Jefferson Exum became a member of the Detroit Mercy Law faculty,
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 4
first serving as the Philip J. McElroy Professor of Law. In 2021, she was appointed to her current
position as Dean of the School of Law. Before she became a member of the faculty at the Detroit
Mercy Law School, she held positions as an associate professor at the University of Kansas
School of Law, a professor of law at the University of Toledo College of Law, and as a visiting
associate professor at the University of Michigan Law School. Currently, she is a professor of
law at the Detroit Mercy Law School. In addition to his role as Dean, Jefferson Exum has
previously held positions at Tulane Law School as both a Forrester Fellow and an Instructor in
Legal Writing. Her work has been highlighted on important sentencing websites such as
Sentencing Law and Policy, where she also serves as a member of the Editorial Board. Dean
Jefferson Exum is a part of the Editorial Board of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. The majority
of Dean Jefferson Exum's writing is focused on the legal and policy aspects of sentencing. In
addition to this, her areas of study interest involve comparative criminal law and procedure,
policing, as well as the influence of race on the criminal justice system (udmercy.edu, 2021).
Theory and Critique
According to the hypothesis presented in Exum's research, even if the United States vs.
Booker judgment from 2005 may have granted judges some latitude to use discretion in some
instances. Despite this, they continue to be constrained by the mandatory minimum sentence
provisions that are included in many federal statutes. These provisions apply to the majority of
drug charges as well as serious felonies. She says that due to the very high cost of jail, it is
unavoidable that sentence changes will take place in the near future. According to the
information presented in the article, the majority of those involved in the court system see these
standards as a barrier to the application of reasonable sentencing. However, in accordance with
the original intent of the Constitution, this category also includes judicial officers, legislative
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 5
representatives, and counsel for the defense (famm.org, 2021). Exum supports her theory with
the data that are shown in the following paragraphs. She makes reference to the financial report
for 2014 that was produced by the United States Sentencing Commission. According to this
report, the Federal Bureau of Prisons is operating at a capacity that is 32 percent higher than
necessary. The Sentencing Reform Act's Section 994(G) must be carried out in accordance with
the commission's directive. In accordance with this aim, ensuring that the system does not
become oversaturated with individuals is essential.
According to the findings of the reports that are used in this article, the offender was
found guilty of committing an offense that carried a required minimum sentence in 23.6% of all
instances in 2014. 67.8 percent of these instances were drug trafficking charges, which accounted
for more than two-thirds of the total. A little more than half, or 52%, of federal drug offenders,
have been found guilty of committing an offense that carried a mandatory minimum term in the
year 2014. Despite the fact not all of these defendants were eventually convicted to a mandatory
minimum punishment, 46% seemed to be, and that is still a significant percentage of drug
offenders. The actual sentence decisions had a significant bearing on the situation. demonstrating
that those who violated drug laws were liable to a mandatory minimum sentence. in addition to
serving an average of 127 months of their sentence. Which ultimately resulted in a sentence that
was 87 months greater than the typical term handed down to a drug offender who was not guilty
of an offense that carried a mandatory minimum sentence.
Furthermore, the author emphasizes that mandatory minimum penalties are often applied
to cases involving crimes that include the use of firearms. At the time of sentencing, mandatory
minimum sentences applied to 77.5 percent of those convicted of firearm offenses. In terms of
Armed Career Criminals, the percentage came in at 78.0 percent. Exum raises the point that there
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 6
is a possibility that some people may argue that such a mandatory sentence is justified in light of
the worry about gun violence. She argues that it is tough to debate about this topic, regardless of
what perspective you take on the matter. Additionally, the relevant penalties are relatively long
for a significant portion of the criminal population an. With an average sentence of 171 months
for those convicted of firearm offenses and 206 months for individuals convicted of being Armed
Career Criminals. There is no denying the fact that mandatory minimum sentences have been a
major factor in the dramatic rise in the number of people incarcerated. The usage of minimum
sentences for drug crimes and armed offenders is broken down and explained in this article. It
does not take into consideration a number of other elements that would have been involved if
penalties had been less severe. This may give the impression to the general public that society
had a lenient stance toward these crimes, which not only affects the victim's life but also the
offenders. The number of prior convictions that the individuals who committed these crimes had
is not mentioned anywhere in this report. Which may also be used to anticipate a high recidivism
rate and therefore only account for a brief drop in the jail population. Moreover, this could be
used to predict that the prison population would increase again. In addition, it still does not
carefully consider the expense that would be incurred by other initiatives designed to curb crime
in the event that sentencing guidelines were loosened. Also, if various jurisdictions are able to
exercise their discretion to inflict similarly severe penalties if they are given the authority to do
so, this raises the question of whether or not this is the case.
Hypothesis Valid or False
Mass imprisonment has been attributed in part to the existence of the Mandatory
Minimum Sentencing law. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing rules have been widely accepted in
the United States for the last 30 years. This study shows that people and communities may be
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 7
kept secure by removing violent criminals from the population at large. My first thought was that
it was a reasonable conclusion to draw. Despite the fact that this belief might be supported, it
could also be challenged. Studying other repercussions of crime as well as why individuals
commit crime disproved this notion by criminologists. The aging effect was another.
Statistically, offenders commit less crimes as they become older, which supports the
theory. (F.T. Cullen, 2016). Keeping criminals behind bars beyond their "peak criminal years"
seems to be a waste of resources, according to this study. According to statistics, this very same
sort of crime will also be committed by another person in the future. Drug trafficking is a good
illustration of this. Taking possession of three city blocks is no easy task, especially if the
criminal is caught. To make matters worse, there may well be a power struggle, which might
lead to more violence. It's possible that a gang war over the same territory would not have
occurred if the initial criminal activities in that region had not been handled (F.T. Cullen, 2016).
The labeling effect would be the third and maybe most significant effect. This impact has
to do with other people's belief that they can only perform as well as their peers. In regions
where there has been a high rate of imprisonment due to the implementation of mandatory
minimum sentences, there has developed a subculture that condones criminal behavior to some
level. Although the intention was to discourage criminal behavior, there was never any effort
made to provide an alternative that was preferable to criminal activity. This may have
contributed to the capacity of a community to tolerate the conduct in question.
The author makes a reference to sentence reform, which cannot be disputed in any way.
She issues a cautionary note to those in charge of sentence reform. They need to not just be
concerned with abolishing mandatory minimum sentences, but also, and more crucially,
outlining fair rules for judges to follow in the future.
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 8
Conclusion
The topic of this paper, "Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Their Effect on the
Overcrowding of Federal Penitentiaries," is addressed in a way that brings up some very good
concerns. It examines the hypothesis that the congestion in prisons is caused by two primary
forms of illegal behavior: those involving drug charges and those involving criminal conduct
with a weapon. This further highlights the risk that simply eliminating these rules as part of
sentencing reform may result in the emergence of other issues. This is because there are no
guidelines for judges, which might lead to indeterminate sentences that could be negatively
affected by judicial bias. The reason for this is because there is a lack of guidelines for judges.
The work that has been done in the area of identifying what constitutes a fair and
reasonable sentencing for criminal action has been advanced by this article. It makes a passing
reference to the fact that mandatory minimum sentences have not been effective, but it does not
answer the issue of how our society might change as a result. In addition, the billions of dollars
that were spared owing to the implementation of mandatory criminal sentencing have been used
up in the form of harsh terms designed to eradicate offenders from society. Among the most
noteworthy aspects of this study is that it shows that removing one policy without replacing it
may really cause more harm than good.
“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the
eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with
everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath,
for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.” (Romans
12:17-19, NIV, 2001)
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 9
References
Cullen, F. T. (2016). Crisis in American Correction. In C. L. Jonson (Ed.), Correctional Theory
(Second Edition, p. 136-140). Thousand Oaks, Canada: SAGE Publications.
Exum, J. (2016). commentary on judicial discretion, mandatory minimums, and sentencing
reform. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 28(3), 209-210.Homepage. (2020, June 25).
Retrieved September 25, 2021, from https://famm.org/
Jelani Jefferson Exum at university of Detroit mercy. (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2021, from
https://www.udmercy.edu/about/people/university/law/jelani-jefferson-exum.php
Lowenthal, G. T. (1993). Mandatory sentencing laws: Undermining the effectiveness of
determinate sentencing reform. California Law Review, 81(1), 61-124.
New International Version. Biblica, 2011. Bible Gateway,
www.biblegateway.com/versions/NewInternational-Version-NIV-Bible/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
