Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentencing in the U.S (PowerPoint)

profilepv45621
Assignment1PolicyIssues.pdf

POLICY ISSUE

Mandatory minimum sentencing is a judicial policy in the United States that requires

judges to punish certain crimes with an absolute minimum period of time in prison, regardless of

circumstance (USSC, 1991). The 1980s and 1990s have been classified as the ‘tough on crime’

era in regards to US criminal justice legislation and then-criminal justice reform. Anti-drug

sentiment was pervasive throughout the country, with highly visible and expensive advertising

campaigns directed for anti-drug causes. The campaigns were one aspect of a multi-faceted

blitzkrieg on the increasing incidence of drug trafficking throughout the United States,

particularly crack cocaine. In addition, mandatory minimum sentencing was instated during the

Reagan administration, primarily to address the perceived crack and greater drug epidemic,

expanding throughout the next decade. It was a popular issue that crossed party lines, being

embraced by the Republican Reagan and Bush administrations, and continuing with the

Democratic Clinton administration in the 1990s; by 1994 mandatory minimums were enforced in

31 states and Washington, DC (Baker, 2018).

PUBLIC POLICY

Mandatory minimum sentencing is covered under the Regulatory public policy as this

type of policy limits the actions of people in order to protect the general public. In order to

protect the general public - the people of the United States, mandatory minimums were

introduced as a means to control or stymie ‘dangerous criminals’.

POLICY MODIFICATION

One revision to this policy I would introduce would be the elimination of mandatory

minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenses. I believe this would positively impact this

policy because currently the state and federal prisons are overcrowded, partly due to those

incarcerated for lengthy prison sentences for drug charges. Individuals sentenced to prison time

for drug offenses should have their cases re-evaluated and determined on a case-by-case basis

versus on a standard nationwide scale. When the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was initiated, the

new polices were not said to be retroactive and only applied to new cases. Many of those who

are currently incarcerated would not receive the same sentences if their cases were tried in court

today. I do not believe a one size fits all policy is conducive to fixing the overall drug problems

in the U.S.

A second modification to this policy I would introduce would be the re-instatement of

judicial power and discretion. Mandatory minimum sentencing essentially removes the

discretion of judges from the equation when it comes to sentencing. Judges should have the

power to veto certain sentencing standards, but with mandatory minimums their hands are tied.

Again, each case should be judged and evaluated individually and not on a national standardized

scale.

If the U.S. were to issue commutations to all prisoners incarcerated for non-violent, drug

offenses in one mass sweep, I do believe this would have negative consequences. Not every case

is the same and some prisoners may not meet specific criteria to be released back into society.

This could be for a number of different reasons, such as behavior in prison, has the prisoner

taken advantage of any rehabilitation programs while incarcerated, has a release plan been

established to mitigate the risk of repeat offenses or behaviors. Maintaining the current three-

strike rule also has negative connotations to addressing the mass incarceration problems in the

U.S. The three-strike rule states a third felony, regardless of what type of felony, constitutes a

mandatory, lengthy prison sentence, typically a life sentence. The three felony charges could

amount to non-violent crimes with a monetary amount of $500 each, however the bill for the

federal government to incarcerate someone for a life sentence could amount to well over

$500,000.00; and this is per person.

THE CONSTITUTION

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states ‘excessive bail shall not be

required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted’ (Levy, n.d.).

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the U.S. potentially violates this constitutional right

because the sentences can be viewed as excessive or cruel and unusual. It has been theorized in

the past that the drug epidemic the U.S. government legislated mandatory minimums against was

created by (or at least significantly contributed from) the U.S. government itself. It was revealed

in 1996 that the US Central Intelligence Agency likely funded the ‘contra’ insurgency against the

Nicaraguan government in the 1980s, using millions of dollars raised from the black-market sale

of crack cocaine to urban Los Angeles (Blum 1996). Therefore, it could be (and has been) argued

that mandatory minimum sentences represented the U.S. government, strongly punishing a

population for suffering from an epidemic that they themselves intentionally infected (Baker,

2018).

The 14th Amendment states ‘nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws’ (LII, n.d.). Mandatory minimum sentencing could be viewed as

unconstitutional in the realm of the 14th amendment because of the enactment of the Fair

Sentencing Act not being retroactive. One could argue this to be an unequal representation of

protection of the law.

The federal government enacted the mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the U.S.,

therefore placing a general practice all states must follow. This does not leave room for

interpretation of the sentencing rules as the law is stated for every judge to follow, regardless of

each individual circumstance.

REFERENCES

Baker, S. (2018). Written Communication. Unpublished communication assignment. Strayer

University.

Levy, M. (n.d.). Eighth Amendment. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eighth-

Amendment

Blum, W. (1996). The CIA, contras, gangs, and crack. Foreign Policy in Focus. Retrieved from

https://ips-dc.org/the_cia_contras_gangs_and_crack/

Legal Information Institute (n.d.). Cornell Law School. 14th Amendment. Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv