Untie the Judges Hands Imagine you are a fifty-one year old man and you have not eaten in two days, and you resort to theft. Stealing a fifty-cent package of doughnuts from the corner store. You are at your home when suddenly officers burst in and arrest you. Then during your court proceedings, the prosecutor brings up two prior convictions from thirty years earlier so he can charge you under mandatory sentencing laws. This means a life sentence without parole over a fifty- cent pack of doughnuts. Though this scenario sounds too outrageous to be true, it happened to Robert Fassbender, a California man. States Attorney Yraceburn stated," Because of his (Fassbender) history of recidivism and the number of crimes he 's been convicted of," Fassbinder …show more content…
In the early 1980s, the United States declared an all-out war on drugs and over the past several decades the United States of America has traveled down a dark road when it comes to sentencing for drug offenses. One of the major tools that they used in this war on drugs is the mandatory sentencing laws. These laws were enacted in 1984 to help combat and get violent drug dealers off our streets. What these laws did was set a mandatory minimum sentence that stated if you are arrested for fifteen or more grams of crack cocaine, you would be charged as if you had five hundred grams of powder cocaine thus getting you a minimum of a ten year sentence in prison. If you are arrested for growing 100 marijuana plants under these draconian laws, you would be charged as if you were possession of 100 pounds of marijuana which carries a minimum of a five-year …show more content…
With the economy in the turmoil that it is in America cannot continue to support these sentencing guidelines. The Mandatory Article Sentencing declares that the laws are becoming a huge drain on the Justice Bureau’s budget, and in 2012 the United States had far beyond more people incarcerated than any other country. Most of these prisoners are low-level drug offenders sentenced under mandatory sentencing guidelines with a cost draining on American taxpayers $6.8 billion a year, as of 2012. These costs do not seem to have a ceiling and continue eating up about twenty-five percent of the federal justice system’s yearly budget.
Sentencing disparity within the American Judicial system is a problem that exists across the nation. According to Merriam Webster’s dictionary, disparity means the markedly distinct in quality or character. Many times, disparity is used in conjunction with discrimination as if the two words mean the same, but they do not. Disparity will include a difference in treatment or outcome but is not based on an opinion, bias or prejudice.
This case also shows the effectiveness of the legal system in protecting individuals rights to not be tried or punished more than once under section 26. This is shown as the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions had urged that it would be oppressive as he already served 11 months of his sentence therefore the acquittal remained the
The judge is an authority who acts according to the law. The judge in this case doesn’t have any precedent to follow when making this ruling. The law expects you to pay for your crimes but is there a time limit to when they can call you to do so? It is up to the judge to determine what the law is saying. The justice system another authority, also is the reason he isn’t in prison.
The justice system has to take a new approach to enforce law that place minor drug offenses in jail for long periods of time and actually
Due to the fact that drug courts are working to reduce crime, the policies and practices of the US government may have to be changed or strengthened in favor of drug courts. For example, in the Journal Do Drug Courts Work? Getting Inside the Drug Court Black Box (Goldkamp, White, Robinson, 2001), the authors say “Nevertheless, these findings also suggest that variation in drug court out comes may be explained by changes in the operation of the drug court and its ability to deliver the treatment and deterrent effects postulated by the collection of components inside the drug court black box”. This clearly shows that in order for drug courts to work and grow in numbers, changes in policies and procedures that are shown to reduce crime need to be implemented everywhere. Weaknesses that can be found in this summary are that all active drug courts in the US did not respond, which could lead to a very different outcome involving the effectiveness of drug courts as a
This shows how the government should start funding these programs to help lower the jail population. This is why the government should have a sentencing
(http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Drug-Courts-A-Review-of-the-Evidence.pdf) Since 1989 the number of Drug Courts have risen significantly due to the realization of the need for treatment with offenders that have a history of drug abuse. There is a total of 3,133 drug courts in the United States today with 1,561 of them being solely adult drug courts. (http://www.ndcrc.org/content/how-many-drug-courts-are-there). The drug court movement reflects the desire to shift the emphasis from attempting to combat drug crimes by reducing the supply of drugs into addressing the demand for drugs through the treatment of addiction.
Similarly, Brown found that in a matched cohort study comparing traditional prison sentencing to drug court programs it was shown that there was significantly less recidivism in the drug court participants than in the offenders that were sentenced to jail or prison time. In this study 137 drug court participants were matched with offenders that had been sentenced traditionally. It was shown that the recidivism rate for drug court participants was only thirty percent, whereas the traditionally sentenced participants had a forty-seven percent recidivism rate. Brown also examined the time between program completion and participants committing a new crime. In the drug court participants, the mean time was 614 days, and in the traditionally sentenced participants the average time was 463 days (Brown,
The existence of mandatory minimums are a major issue in the United States today. Since the implementation of Mandatory minimums, the prison population has increased 800%. This massive rise in prisoner population has come with devastating economic and human costs. The death of Len Bias, the moral panic that ensued, and corporate looking to make a profit off of it, have all culminated in the implementation of mandatory minimums. Len Bias was an American college basketball player who had just been recruited to play in the NBA, he died in 1986 due to a heart attack believed to have been caused by cocaine use.
Defined as a public policy that imposes an outlined amount of prison time based on the crime committed and the defendant’s criminal history, these sentences dictate that a judge must enact a statutory fixed penalty on individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Such laws have removed discretionary sentencing power from judges, instead focusing on severe punishments in line with national drug and crime concerns. While the original goal of mandatory minimum sentences was to deter potential criminals, reduce drug use, control judicial prudence, the policy has had extreme consequences such as sentencing imbalances and
Inconsistent applications of mandatory minimums generate disparate sentences among similarly situated offenders. Some basic facts may trigger the same minimum sentence for a low-level drug courier and a narcotics kingpin, for example, while enormous
Habitual offender statues are derived from the same punitive atmosphere that led to truth in sentencing law. Three strikes and your out rule. These statues mean offenders with a third felony conviction may be sentenced to life imprisonment regardless of the natural of the third felony. Habitual offender statues have affected sentenced in many ways. One way is when you are convicted of that third crime you many be faced with life with out parole (LWOP).
Essentially, the war on drugs has demonstrated to be an exorbitant expense. The federal government in 2002 alone spent $18.822 billion in the form of expenditures such as treatment, prevention, and domestic law enforcement (CSDP, 2007, p. 54). However, given that the drug war has garnered meager results, this investment may be interpreted as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Alternatively, the money that has been allocated to arrest and detain drug offenders may also be a source of contention. CSDP (2007) “Of the 1,846,351 arrests for drug law violations in 2005, 81.7% (1,508,469) were for possession of a controlled substance.
The current system that incarcerates people over and over is unsustainable and does not lower the crime rate nor encourage prisoner reformation. When non-violent, first time offenders are incarcerated alongside violent repeat offenders, their chance of recidivating can be drastically altered by their experience in prison. Alternative sentencing for non-violent drug offenders could alleviate this problem, but many current laws hinder many possible solutions. Recently lawmakers have made attempts to lower the recidivism rates in America, for example the Second Chance Act helps aid prisoners returning into society after incarceration. The act allows states to appropriate money to communities to help provide services such as education, drug treatment programs, mental health programs, job corps services, and others to aid in offenders returning to society after incarceration (Conyers, 2013).
There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation.