Mandatory Minimums
Is Mandatory the New Black? As you sow, so shall you reap. Despite its Biblical lineage, this common saying within American pop culture is held true by citizens across all religions, sectors, and political parties. Essentially, every negative action should be met with negative consequences, every severe crime should be met with severe punishment, and so forth. This karma-like notion is sprinkled across legislation within all areas of modern society. However, the American people’s innate drive for “payback”, or antagonistic repercussions for all crimes committed, may have reached its breaking point. The implementation of mandatory minimums, or unalterable minimum sentences for specific offenses, has proven harmful to the United States’ economy
…show more content…
and social order overall. Mandatory minimums negatively affect American communities by unfairly targeting low-level offenders and wasting taxpayer dollars. In order to fully comprehend the extent to which these regulations affect our nation, though, one must first examine the laws’ history. Mandatory minimums were first introduced in 1986 due to the fact that “the crack cocaine epidemic was at its peak and the devastating impact [of this epidemic] on urban communities was being felt in the form of skyrocketing crack addiction rates and crime rates” (“Introduction to Mandatory”). In response to the raging epidemic, legislators found it necessary to implement regulations on the amount of jail time served per re-offense. This took away the freedom of judges to assign lower sentences, but was utilized in hopes that it would discourage repeated crack use within these urban communities. The theory was, since criminals knew for certain they would be serving minimums of three-to-six years in jail -- rather than sentences assigned at the judge’s discretion -- they’d be less likely to commit drug offenses in the first place. However, the variability of drug-related crimes (whether the convict was dealing or abusing, the amount of grams involved in each infraction, etc.) has unfortunately led to a multitude of issues. The primary fault within the re-offense-focus of mandatory minimum sentences is that only poorer, lower-level offenders are being targeted. This observation is evident in the Arizonian prison system especially because “when applied to non-dangerous offenses, Arizona's sentencing enhancements make little or no distinction between serious and petty offenders. For example, under the repetitive enhancement, an addict with one prior conviction for drug possession caught selling a gram of cocaine faces a sentence that is almost double that of a dealer caught with a kilo of cocaine for the first time.” (Greene). This error doesn’t uniquely affect Arizona, though. The research of Christopher Moraff, an American journalist specializing in 21st century crime, suggests that mandatory minimums almost always punish criminals on a basis of re-offense rather than the amount of contraband they possess. This becomes problematic due to the fact that drug dealers are overwhelmingly under-sentenced, while the opposite can be said for re-offending addicts. For example, say a mastermind drug kingpin that has dealt thousands of grams of crack cocaine is caught for his first offense. This dealer may only receive a few months in county prison. Under the same regulations, however, an impoverished teenager addicted to crack and living in a low-income neighborhood may receive decades of incarceration for only a second or third offense (this applies even if said teenager was only caught with one gram of cocaine when reoffending). As you can see, dealers who promote drug addiction within America’s urban communities are often held accountable to the same crimes as addicts. If mandatory minimums were abolished, then judges would have the discretion to punish dealers more harshly if required. This would not only hold more serious criminals responsible for their actions, but it’d also solve one of the root issues within drug-infested populations: an excess of drug dealers. Additionally, without these minimums, judges would be able to send lower-level offenders (such as addicts and minors) to rehabilitation facilities rather than expensive federal prisons. Speaking of expense, the second most negative effect of mandatory minimum sentences on the United States is their perplexingly large economic impact.
This is concern is thoroughly outlined within a recent study performed by Rachael Young with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Young states that “when offenders ‘pay their debt to society’ by going to prison, society pays, too. North Carolina spends as much as $200,000 more on each criminal incarcerated as a habitual felon than if he or she had been sentenced according to the single offense. The average cost per inmate per day is about $65, or about $23,830 per inmate each year. North Carolina spent almost $789 million on its prison population, much more than the state's entire community college budget.” The reason for such extensive costs is due to the fact that, as previously stated, the nation is imprisoning low-level drug addicts instead of providing them with the rehabilitation required for curing addiction. This is proven by the fact that “a 1997 study found that treating heavy drug users was eight to nine time more cost-effective than long (six- to seven-year) mandatory sentences in reducing drug use, sales, and drug-related crimes, and estimated that treatment reduced drug-related crime as much as 15 times more than mandatory sentences,” (Young). Considering the fact that prison upkeep is payed for by innocent, everyday citizens- one might demand that the government opts for lower-cost plans for keeping drugs off American streets. In order to do so, the government should eradicate mandatory minimums and invest in cheaper, more effective preventative programs (such as rehabilitation) instead of spending more money on prison sentencing (which could otherwise be allocated to new community colleges, healthcare programs, essential highway infrastructure, and
more).
and social order overall. Mandatory minimums negatively affect American communities by unfairly targeting low-level offenders and wasting taxpayer dollars. In order to fully comprehend the extent to which these regulations affect our nation, though, one must first examine the laws’ history. Mandatory minimums were first introduced in 1986 due to the fact that “the crack cocaine epidemic was at its peak and the devastating impact [of this epidemic] on urban communities was being felt in the form of skyrocketing crack addiction rates and crime rates” (“Introduction to Mandatory”). In response to the raging epidemic, legislators found it necessary to implement regulations on the amount of jail time served per re-offense. This took away the freedom of judges to assign lower sentences, but was utilized in hopes that it would discourage repeated crack use within these urban communities. The theory was, since criminals knew for certain they would be serving minimums of three-to-six years in jail -- rather than sentences assigned at the judge’s discretion -- they’d be less likely to commit drug offenses in the first place. However, the variability of drug-related crimes (whether the convict was dealing or abusing, the amount of grams involved in each infraction, etc.) has unfortunately led to a multitude of issues. The primary fault within the re-offense-focus of mandatory minimum sentences is that only poorer, lower-level offenders are being targeted. This observation is evident in the Arizonian prison system especially because “when applied to non-dangerous offenses, Arizona's sentencing enhancements make little or no distinction between serious and petty offenders. For example, under the repetitive enhancement, an addict with one prior conviction for drug possession caught selling a gram of cocaine faces a sentence that is almost double that of a dealer caught with a kilo of cocaine for the first time.” (Greene). This error doesn’t uniquely affect Arizona, though. The research of Christopher Moraff, an American journalist specializing in 21st century crime, suggests that mandatory minimums almost always punish criminals on a basis of re-offense rather than the amount of contraband they possess. This becomes problematic due to the fact that drug dealers are overwhelmingly under-sentenced, while the opposite can be said for re-offending addicts. For example, say a mastermind drug kingpin that has dealt thousands of grams of crack cocaine is caught for his first offense. This dealer may only receive a few months in county prison. Under the same regulations, however, an impoverished teenager addicted to crack and living in a low-income neighborhood may receive decades of incarceration for only a second or third offense (this applies even if said teenager was only caught with one gram of cocaine when reoffending). As you can see, dealers who promote drug addiction within America’s urban communities are often held accountable to the same crimes as addicts. If mandatory minimums were abolished, then judges would have the discretion to punish dealers more harshly if required. This would not only hold more serious criminals responsible for their actions, but it’d also solve one of the root issues within drug-infested populations: an excess of drug dealers. Additionally, without these minimums, judges would be able to send lower-level offenders (such as addicts and minors) to rehabilitation facilities rather than expensive federal prisons. Speaking of expense, the second most negative effect of mandatory minimum sentences on the United States is their perplexingly large economic impact.
This is concern is thoroughly outlined within a recent study performed by Rachael Young with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Young states that “when offenders ‘pay their debt to society’ by going to prison, society pays, too. North Carolina spends as much as $200,000 more on each criminal incarcerated as a habitual felon than if he or she had been sentenced according to the single offense. The average cost per inmate per day is about $65, or about $23,830 per inmate each year. North Carolina spent almost $789 million on its prison population, much more than the state's entire community college budget.” The reason for such extensive costs is due to the fact that, as previously stated, the nation is imprisoning low-level drug addicts instead of providing them with the rehabilitation required for curing addiction. This is proven by the fact that “a 1997 study found that treating heavy drug users was eight to nine time more cost-effective than long (six- to seven-year) mandatory sentences in reducing drug use, sales, and drug-related crimes, and estimated that treatment reduced drug-related crime as much as 15 times more than mandatory sentences,” (Young). Considering the fact that prison upkeep is payed for by innocent, everyday citizens- one might demand that the government opts for lower-cost plans for keeping drugs off American streets. In order to do so, the government should eradicate mandatory minimums and invest in cheaper, more effective preventative programs (such as rehabilitation) instead of spending more money on prison sentencing (which could otherwise be allocated to new community colleges, healthcare programs, essential highway infrastructure, and
more).