Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Every situation in life is unique and has its own set of circumstances. Crime is no different, which is why it often difficult to effectively use policies like mandatory minimum sentences, because not every crime is the same. It is acceptable for their to be some disparity in sentencing for similar crimes, but there still needs to be some consistency. The initiation of mandatory minimum sentences was due in large part to the fact that judges had too much discretion and it led to many similar cases having wildly different sentences.1 There was sound reasoning for enacting mandatory minimum sentences, but they “are the product of good intentions, but good intentions do not always make good policy; good results are also necessary.”1 Mandatory
…show more content…
This was not the intention of mandatory minimum sentencing when it was introduced, but the unfair treatment of minorities was a result. Mandatory minimum sentences have also led people to give false information about other offenders in order to try and reduce their own sentence. A low level drug offender will be willing to give information and make someone appear to be a “high level trafficker” even if that is not the case.2 Also, prosecutors are willing to work with anyone who will provide information to them, because it makes them look better if they can convict two separate offenders after only one person was originally arrested. Finally, police officers also have the ability of discretion and can decide to arrest or let people off with a warning. The broken windows policing model states that deteriorated neighborhoods, often in urban areas are more likely to experience criminal activity than suburban, civil neighborhoods.5 This leads to more minorities than white people being arrested and ultimately serving mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. I do not believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses. The reason for enacting these laws was to try and deter crime, but research has shown that harsher punishments does not lead to a decrease in crime rates. Incarcerating people for drug offenses is not an effective way to combat drug crimes. The space in prisons, and funds used to fight drug crimes should both be focused more on violent
This was not the intention of mandatory minimum sentencing when it was introduced, but the unfair treatment of minorities was a result. Mandatory minimum sentences have also led people to give false information about other offenders in order to try and reduce their own sentence. A low level drug offender will be willing to give information and make someone appear to be a “high level trafficker” even if that is not the case.2 Also, prosecutors are willing to work with anyone who will provide information to them, because it makes them look better if they can convict two separate offenders after only one person was originally arrested. Finally, police officers also have the ability of discretion and can decide to arrest or let people off with a warning. The broken windows policing model states that deteriorated neighborhoods, often in urban areas are more likely to experience criminal activity than suburban, civil neighborhoods.5 This leads to more minorities than white people being arrested and ultimately serving mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. I do not believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses. The reason for enacting these laws was to try and deter crime, but research has shown that harsher punishments does not lead to a decrease in crime rates. Incarcerating people for drug offenses is not an effective way to combat drug crimes. The space in prisons, and funds used to fight drug crimes should both be focused more on violent