A recent report by the Families Against Mandatory Minimums
shows the many ways in which the sentencing
restrictions are not working. What was most interesting,
and even eye opening, to me was to learn that Congress
created the original mandatory minimums in the 1950s
as a 'solution" or "fix" for what they saw as the
viral spread of illegal drugs throughout the country.
The most frightening of these substances, marijuana, was blamed for a rise
in "sadistic" murders and gruesome sex crimes.
Under President Niixon these laws were repealed when lawmakers
saw evidence that showed the minimum
sentencing laws did not reduce crime nor did it reduce drug consumption.
All it accomplished according
to their findings was that judges were unable to fit the punishment
to the individual; judicial discretion was
no longer allowed in area of criminal law.
A primary finding was that stiff sentences were given to non-violent
offenders; judges no longer had discretion
to order any alternative to prison, including much needed addiction
treatment to help get the person rehabilitated.
In the 1980s, in spite of the previous findings by Congress
a decade earlier, once more mandatory
minimums were put into effect. The difference was the
precipitating drug -- crack cocaine.
Making the situation even worse was the fact that
those charged with powdered cocaine
had to have much larger amounts in order to face much time in prison.
Crack cocaine is primarily a drug choice among lower
socioeconomic individuals because it is much less
costly than the powdered version which is more likely
to have higher socioeconomic users.
State budgets were being squeezed because of the high cost
of incarcerating these individuals prior to the
latest economic crisis. It does not take a genius to realize that
the combination of the housing woes and the
extreme downturn in the stock market will exacerbate the problem for the states.
Hopefully the next Congress can once more do as they did
under Nixon and repeal the law and not ever again
resurrect it. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work and
trying it again, does not make it work.
The entire article that appeared in the Washington Post is here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Mandatory sentencing for drug possessions and the three strikes laws in certain states are responsible for the majority of inmates incarcerated in the United States. Although these are crimes that should be punished, a high mandatory sentence for a small possession of drugs or repeated offences is not proportional to the offence. Drug offences should be handled on a case by case basis as all crimes in the judicial systems. Mandatory sentencing is a step to “fast food” justice and occasionally violates due process. The way to combat drugs is not through sentencing but law enforcement.
Over the course of the CCJO curriculum we're exposed to the use of mandatory minimums quite a few times. The empirical evidence does not support its continued use, especially in a society where our prisons are overcrowded and our court system is overtaxed. The Supreme Court ruled Robinson v. CA that one cannot be jailed purely on the basis of having a drug addiction. Yet, we put non-violent offenders in jail and prison all the time for possession of small amounts of illegal substances. Not that I'm advocating legalization, but there has to be a better way other than jailing those who are not trafficking or selling. In response to the previous poster, I'm not even sure if law enforcement is the best way to combat drugs. Interdiction progams may not be putting enough of a dent in trafficking. Better foreign policy initiatives and cooperation between US and the countries of origin (Columbia, Mexico, Afghanistan, etc) along with prevention, treatment and education, may be a better alternative and a better use of our money.
Farrah Massey
I think that if there are to be mandatory minimums, then they should be for violent crimes. Individuals who are convicted of drug possession are either users or someone who may be in the need of fast cash. Most of the individuals who are convicted of these crimes are low income individuals and have little exposure to a high profile defense. Those who are arrested and have a drug problem should be enrolled into a drug treatment program and to identify what other underlying causes for the drug use.
I think it's interesting how Congress is more concerned with imposing mandatory sentences on drug users and dealers rather than rapists and murderers. Most drug users are addicted and need treatment rather than to sit in a cell for a minimum period or time. At the same time, many violent criminals are back on the streets in one or two years. Some violent criminals are sentenced to "treatment", and serve even less actual time. I also agree with the points made above that many drug users and dealers don't have the money for proper defense.
Someone addicted to crack-cocaine doens't frighten me nearly as much when I go jogging at night than a rapist roaming the streets, when they should still be serving time behind bars.
So I definitely think that Congress is spinning its wheels and wasting taxpayer money and the court's time. They are also short-changing the drug users who could really benefit from treatment rather than going through the motions.
Tara Chadwick
I agree the mandatory sentence should be a thing of the past. However, if the mandatory sentence is repealed, will we not eventually enter into another era of sentencing disparities fueling the call for mandatory sentencing? Perhaps some effort can be designed to redirect this cycle to avoid the calls for mandatory sentencing 30 years from now. Devin Johnson
Good point Devon. I personally feel more comfortable with the judge or the jury establishing the sentence based on the individual as well as the crime. Since we elect judges as well as prosecutors, it is our duty as voters to choose not to re-elect someone whose overall sentencing pattern is contrary to most other courts. NOTE I said overall, I do not think we should ever make decisions on any one case unless we were in the courtroom and knew all the facts, mitigating as well as aggravating.
Using a range of punishment seems a better alternative than the current system.
I want my tax dollars put to uses other than to build more prisons to house non-violent offenders.
I agree that minimum sentencing laws do not reduce crime nor do they reduce drug consumption. I know a couple of individuals who have been incarcerated several times for charges relating to their drug addictions. They have either been arrested for drug possession, having drug paraphernalia, or for committing criminal acts in order to get their drugs. They are being punished by being incarcerated, but it is obvious that the incarceration is not working; their sentencing needs to be a mandatory drug rehabilitation program. I believe they are unable to rehabilitate themselves although they have said time and again that they can. I also believe that judges should have discretion to order any alternative to prison. We need to do whatever is necessary to combat these terrible addictions that are plaguing our society.
Shanitha Williams
Good point about those with drug problems not being helped to overcome the addiction by incarceration.
Post a Comment