Explain what mandatory minimum sentencing is and how it applies to current legal situations. Is it working?

Answer 1

Mandatory minimum sentencing forces a judge to impose a minimum jail sentence on an offender. It's intended to act as a major deterrent to crimes that the public can go one way or the other on. A good example is drugs. The judge may look at the case and think it's not that big of a deal, and maybe she only wants to sentence the offender to a few months in prison. The minimum sentence is in place to ensure that all prisoners, regardless the circumstances of the crime, serve at least a set amount of time.

So is it working? Not really. It's taking away the element of human judgment from the case. It's filling up America's prisons and burdening the taxpayer. It is resulting in more arrests and more time-served, but you would have to look closely at the statistics to learn if a given community is benefiting from mandatory minimums.

Answer 2

A mandatory sentence is a court decision setting where judicial discretion is limited by law. Typically, people convicted of certain crimes must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. Mandatory sentencing laws vary from country to country.

Adherents of mandatory sentencing believe that it reduces crime and ensures uniformity in sentencing. Potential criminals and repeat offenders are expected to avoid crime because they can be certain of their sentence if they are caught.

Arguments against mandatory sentencing include claims that it is unfair and can cause overcrowding in prisons. It is widely argued that such laws unfairly target disadvantaged minority groups who are more likely to be imprisoned because they are most likely to come into contact with the justice system by committing crimes. In the United States critics have argued that laws designed to counter drug overlords were trapping minor offenders and imprisoning some for life. Opponents say that uniform sentencing cannot be fair for non-uniform crimes and that it is not possible to build a pre-determined minimum sentence that can cover all circumstances. Further, sentences do not necessarily encapsulate the full impact on a criminal defendant - social stigma and collateral consequences of criminal charges can penalize a defendant beyond the terms of the sentence itself.

In the United States, mandatory sentencing laws are being repealed. An academic study of the Massachusetts prison population published by Harvard in 1997 found that nearly half of the offenders sentenced to long mandatory-minimum terms for drug related offenses had no record of violent crime. The study concluded that jailing nonviolent drug offenders does not cure drug addiction and that the laws were "wasting prison resources on nonviolent, low-level offenders and reducing resources available to lock up violent offenders". Cases such as that of Hamedah Hasan have received some media attention and there are organizations pushing for the review of mandatory sentencing laws.

Opposition to juvenile mandatory sentencing in Australia and a harshly critical United Nations report caused the government to intervene in the Northern Territory in 2000. The debate became particularly heated in 2001 after a young aboriginal/indigenous man committed suicide whilst serving time for stealing stationery worth AUS$90. The Northern Territory repealed their mandatory sentencing laws in October 2001. An analysis of the effects of mandatory sentencing concluded that indigenous people were heavily over-represented, the length of the minimum sentence was not an adequate deterrent, the effect on prison population was unmanageable and that the level of custodial sentencing rose by 50% under mandatory sentencing.

Australia, Mexico, New Zealand and some other countries employ a system of mandatory restorative justice, in which the criminal must apologize to the victim or provide some form of reparation instead of being imprisoned for minor crimes. In serious crimes, some other form of punishment is still used.

Answer 3

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require harsh, automatic prison terms for those convicted of certain crimes, most often drug offenses. Congress enacted mandatory minimums in 1986 and toughened them in 1988 to apply to drug conspiracies and certain gun offenses. The sentence is determined solely by the weight and type of drug, or the presence of a firearm during a felony offense.

Mandatory minimums shift control over sentencing to prosecutors.
Judges no longer consider the facts of each case or the individual’s role.
Conspiracy laws make those at the top and those at the bottom of the drug trade equally culpable.
Mandatory minimums are rarely imposed on drug “kingpins.”
Mandatory minimums are the least cost-effective means of reducing drug use and sales.

bad idea.

Answer 4

We have a little thing called the separation of powers. Mandatory minimums are taking power away from judges and putting it in the hands of our legislators. This is a BAD IDEA!!

Mandatory minimums also place and unfair burden on the defense as there is no leeway given for extenuating circumstances, lack of prior records, or other information which under our previously fair system was given credit and consideration. Also, it adds further strain on already overburdened prison system by disallowing for suspended or reduced sentences forcing non violent criminals to serve lengthy jail terms.

Its a bunch of BS is what it is.

Answer 5

If your found guilty of a crime, mandatory minimum sentencing means the judge must give you a mandatory minimum. For example, if you are found guilty of the crime of murder, a mandatory minimum sentence could be 5 years to life. It takes away the Judges option to give a lesser sentence for a guilty verdict in this crime. Remember the 12 year old in Florida who was found gulty of a crime of murder.... the judge was bound by law on what he could do.

Answer 6

For each crime there is a maximum and a minimum sentence that a judge can give a defendant.Mandatory minimum means that the judge must give the criminal/defendant the minimum amount of jail time that the law requires.

No i dont believe its working because they let people out before their time is up anyways.(depending on the severity of the crime).If you are in jail while the case is in trial then then count the amount of time you were in jail before the sentencing as "time sreved".

Answer 7

It is sell a bag of crack, and get 10 years no matter what. Its was intended to have uniform sentences for all people convicted of certain crimes, but no, its not working, because not all cases are the same, and require different sentences in the interest of justice.

Answer 8

I believe it is a sentence that you MUST serve for a given crime. I do not believe it works in many cases.

Answer 9

Takes discretion away from Judges. Bad idea.