Dylan Hakala

UWRT 1102
4/12/17
The Unjust System of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

It has become common today to dismiss criminals once they've broken the law and had to

appear in court but a criminal should still be treated fairly in the court of law. Mandatory

minimum sentencing laws have been put in place in the judicial system to impose harsh

punishments on criminals under certain offenses. While I believe criminals should know the

consequences of their actions, I also believe each case is unique and should be sentenced

differently than a completely separate case with completely different circumstances. You would

think that everyone should get a sentence that is determined by their own case in a fair court of

law. The use of mandatory minimum sentencings is a system that is highly flawed in our judicial

system and has failed to accomplish its original intention of putting major criminals in prison and

to reduce crime rates.

With mandatory minimum sentencing, offenses are put under a large, one size

punishment no matter the difference in cases or judges. This attempt to blanket a certain type of

offence into a large grouping of the same punishment is an attempt for a quick fix in the judicial

process and makes the judge less flexible in their decisions of the punishments. These sentencing

laws make the prison population increase dramatically and is a main cause of prison

overcrowding which costs the taxpayers more. I think with all these problems due to mandatory

minimum sentencing laws, the sentence doesn't always fit the crime and because that people are

serving unjust severe sentences. Yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting that
mandatory minimum sentencing laws make it easier and faster for a judge to decide the

punishment and not waste any time. But if a judge doesn't have the freedom to decide the

sentencing based on an individuals case then how will that court case be a fair trial when

possibly being sentenced to and unjust amount of time for their crime. My point is that because

of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws, defendants don't get a fair unbiased trial when they

automatically get a punishment that was decided before the case was even presented to the judge.

The use of mandatory minimum sentencing has created more harsh punishments for

offenses that were taken less seriously before the creation of minimum sentencing because of the

strict regulations that an offence now has. Merritt et al. ran a study on the sentencing's given

before and after Oregon's enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing laws called M-11, and

found "offenders with non-violent criminal histories were more likely to be sentenced to prison

after the passage of M-11 and that average sentence lengths increased for both M-11 eligible and

alternate offenses". After the M-11 laws were passed people are now more likely to be sentenced,

and for a longer period of time, no matter if they have no past criminal activity or offenses. With

the enactment of this law, there is a trend that more people are being sent to jail for longer

amounts of time, even if the crime does not meet the minimum sentencing regulation. The

passing of this law has created more harsh punishments for all offenses and made the defendants

past good behavior to not hold any value in the court room. I believe that a persons previous

behavior should be taken into account when given a sentencing in the court of law so a person

who is being tried for their first offense isnt lumped into getting the same amount of time as

someone who has two offenses or multiple charges. This system seems to me, to be set up
against the criminal by taking away some of their rights to a fair trial and giving them

unnecessarily long punishments.

Many of the offenses that are covered under minimum sentencings laws have to do with

drug offenses and is the main focus and reason the laws were created in the first place. The law

has failed in some ways to do its intended purpose which was to convict major criminal

Kingpins and large drug dealing networks and cartels. Professor of law Robert Batey says

They apply so broadly that they sweep in minor criminals along with the major ones, the

kingpins, who are the real targets of the statutes and This failure occurs because almost all

mandatory minimum sentencing provisions allow the court to ignore the minimum sentence if

the prosecution stipulates that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in prosecuting

other criminals. So, if the Kingpin is ever actually found and arrested they is able to rat on

their drug network and get a reduced sentence while his lower level drug dealers and workers are

left with a longer mandatory sentence than the kingpin has. This failure in the system has made it

easier for major drug dealers to be left with minor sentencings compared to their low-level

workers who are given the full mandatory sentencing even though they are not a major role in

the operation. While yes, they are still being able to catch drug dealers and get them off the

streets, theres still a sense of inequality and that the law has failed in the fact that these major

dealers can get off with less punishment than low level drug dealers that wouldnt be there in the

first place if it wasnt for the kingpins or bosses of the operation. These major dealers and bosses

have a loophole in the system where they come out on top while their workers end up having to

spend two or three times longer in jail than their boss who gave them up to the authorities. The
crime doesnt always fit the time with the use of this law, severe punishments are being handed

out here and there while people with connections are getting off easy.

The use of mandatory sentencings work against the traditional idea of a fair court system

and a fair trial. The use of these mandatory sentencings makes the judge less flexible in deciding

a punishment because there is already a sentencing in place before the court even sees the case.

The law also doesnt fit in our judicial system says Paul Cassel stating, Mandatory minimums

can also conflict with the separation of powers doctrine by transferring punishment decisions

from the judiciary to the executive branch, thereby converting federal prosecutors into de facto

sentencers. The job of congress is to make and pass laws that the judicial branch then upholds

in the court of law and interprets each law on a case by case basis. Mandatory sentencings are

congress making the decision for a criminals punishment without the judicial branch being able

to uphold the law and interpret each law through past precedents and personal decisions they

decide on the facts of the case. While these laws give guidelines for judges on what sentencings

they are placing on criminals, it takes away the idea of a fair court when congress implements a

law on what sentence someone gets even though they dont have the power to interpret laws and

give punishments. The executive branch is infringing on the judicial branch by pushing

regulations on how the judicial branch interprets the laws and gives a sentence.

A major problem in the U.S is the large population of Americans who are incarcerated in

federal prisons and the use of mandatory minimum sentencings has led to an increase of the

prison population. Dees Bales published the stats of the increasing prison population in the

1980s from mandatory minimum sentences. They found that Over the entire period, there was
a 522% increase in the number of inmates entering prison each year with a mandatory minimum

sentence, with an average annual increase of 22.8% and this increasing trend of these inmates

are still going up each year. These increases in prison population have created major crowding of

prisons and a slight increase in new prisons being built to keep up with the increase in the inmate

population. New prisons are not being built fast enough to keep up with the increase in

incarceration rates and that means many prisons have to release thousands of inmates early to

make sure they stay under their capacity limit thats issued when the prison is built. Prisoners

with mandatory minimum sentencings are not allowed to be released early due to overcrowding

though, so while the mandatory minimum sentencings with severely long punishments are

increasing the prison population, its pushing the other inmates who have long punishments out of

the prison system to where they only serve a fraction of their sentence as long as their sentencing

was not a mandatory minimum sentence.

Sentencing criminals to a mandatory minimum sentence often results in the system just

trying to punish the offender instead of trying to reform or rehabilitate them as they do not get

rewarded any time off their sentencings for being active in reform and rehab courses while

serving their time. Many prisoners opt to go to many reform and rehab courses ad programs

within their prison system for incentives such as time off their sentencings. These programs can

include things such as attending drug and alcohol prevention meetings and having good behavior

which is used very often for inmates to reduce their prison time. According to Paul Cassel In

these cases, gain-time and credits may be awarded during the mandatory period of the sentence,

however, the prison release date cannot be set prior to the ending of the mandatory period. So,

inmates can take use of these programs but wont be awarded any of the incentives that come
with attending and working within these programs. I say, the more reform programs the better,

prison shouldnt just be a place to hold and confine people but to help and prepare for a life after

prison where they can put their mistakes behind them and be a better person for their community

and family. With mandatory minimum sentencing not allowing these incentives to reduce these

prisoners times then they may feel less motivated or dont see a point to attending these

programs that could benefit their future life after they are released. A lengthy time in prison

shouldnt just be telling the prisoner not to do crimes or youll be back in prison, it should teach

them to contribute to the community and their families in healthy ways so they can have a better

life after their release.

The use of mandatory minimum sentencing has had a very inequivalent effect on the

sentencing and imprisonment of many minority groups, but the biggest impact being on the

African American population of the united states. The law behind mandatory minimum

sentencings is race neutral on paper but in actual effect, it has had a major impact in the

incarceration of minority groupings and has made the race gap between inmates even larger.

Marc Mauer states that in the commissions analysis of mandatory sentencings said, The

disparate application of mandatory minimum sentences in case in which available data strongly

suggest that a mandatory minimum is applicable appears to be related to the race of the

defendant, where whites are more likely than non-whites to be sentenced below the applicable

mandatory minimum. That same review found that 54 percent of white defendants were

sentenced at the mandatory minimum, compared to 67.7 percent of Black defendants and 57.1

percent of Hispanic defendants. These stats show the racial disparity between the cases of

people whose crimes may be eligible to be given a mandatory sentence, the minorities are far
more likely to be given that longer mandatory sentence than the whites who qualify for the same

sentencing. The crackdown on crack cocaine back in the 90s was also a major factor in these

racial disparities in the prison system as crack was given an insanely long mandatory minimum

sentence for very small amounts in possession. This crackdown was very focused in low income

neighborhoods and areas with large minority populations causing a high increase in minority

populations in the prison system. While I believe these attempts to stop the spread of the crack

epidemic in the 90s had good intentions, I also believe that it was handled in a very poor way

where racial minorities were targeted very heavily and have been given ridiculously long

sentences for minor amounts of the drug.

 Works Cited

Bales, William D, and Linda G Dees. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in Florida: Past Trends

and Future Implications. Crime & Delinquency, vol. 38, no. 3, 1992.

Batey, Robert. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, vol.

82, no. 1, Winter2002, p.24. EBSCOhost

Cassell, Paul G., and Erik Luna. Sense and Sensibility in Mandatory Minimum

Sentencing. Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol. 23, no. 3, 2011, pp. 219227

Frost, Natasha A. "MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING." Wiley Online Library. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

Nachmanoff, Michael S., and Amy Baronevans. Booker Five Years Out: Mandatory Minimum

Sentences and Department of Justice Charging Policies Continue to Distort the Federal

Sentencing Process. Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol. 22, no. 2, 2009, pp. 9699.

Mauer, Marc. "The Impact of Mandatory Minimum Penalties in Federal

Sentencing." Judicature, vol. 94, no. 1, 2010, pp. 6-8,40, ProQuest Central