Lance Sao Melendez-Heart

English 123
Professor Alzen
Fall 2016
Research Proposal
Mandatory minimum sentencing has a very large impact on the mass
incarceration rates we have in the United States today, this law should be reexamined or abolished completely because of its negative impact on
socioeconomics and sociopsychology of the inmates and their families.
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons since Congress create mandatory
minimum sentencing in the 1980s for drug crimes the federal prison
population has increased from 24,000 prisoners to over 214,000 prisoners;
the largest prison system in the country to date. This growth has impacted
the American taxpayers as well as the incarcerated and their families. The
U.S. Department of Justice estimates that the federal prison system spent
over 25 percent of the entire Department of Justice budget. The average cost
to keep an inmate in federal prison for a year is about $29,000. On average
taxpayers annually spend over $50 billion for state prisons. This cost can be
better spent in other areas of the criminal justice system like police
departments, rehabilitation, education, and inmate release programs that
help inmates adjust to the general population.
I propose that mandatory minimum sentencing be abolished for nonviolent drug crimes, instead have alternatives to incarceration that will be

much more cost effective. The original goal of this law was to take down
major drug activity and kingpins, but because of substantial assistance
that can be provided from the offenders the lower-level criminals end up
serving more time than the higher-level criminals. The literature I have found
varies because some sources would like to abolish this law altogether while
others would like to see serious changes to this law. As of 2013 several
suggestions have been made to modify this law like the Justice Safety Valve
and the Smarter Sentencing Act. The Justice Safety valve allows judges to
work downward form the minimum sentencing, if the court finds that it is
necessary to do so to avoid an unjust sentence. The Smarter sentencing act
applies to nonviolent drug crimes and allows a judge to issue sentences
without regard for the minimum sentencing if the defendant meets certain
criteria about criminal history and did not commit a disqualifying offense.
Mass incarceration is a very broad and large subject that encompasses
many facets, when starting my research I noticed that over half of the
offenses committed by inmates were drug related. After finding out that the
U.S has the highest prison population in the world I was curious to know why.
I found that the laws that were put in place in the 1980s shaped the outcome
we have today of high rates of mass incarceration. I have found sources from
journal like Law & Psychological Review, Criminology & Public Policy, and the
Phi Kappa Phi Forum. As well as government websites like the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, the U.S Department of Justice and Families Against Mandatory
Minimums (FAMM). As I have continued to research this topic a consistent

theme has presented itself; mandatory minimums will be hard to reform in

Congress. The sources that I have come across have been against mandatory
minimums because of the negative effects that it has played in both the
American economy and public.
Mandatory minimum sentencing is a result of the 1980s campaign to
be tough on crime for most of the 19th and 20th centuries judges had
unlimited sentencing discretion. During the 1960s and 1970s influential legal
members argued that unlimited discretion gave rise to unequal sentencing in
factually similar cases. This paved the way for Congress to modify the federal
sentencing process creating the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This law
established the United States Sentencing Commission who then created the
Sentencing Guidelines which then regulates those discretions. Congress did
not allow the U.S. Sentencing Commission to establish sentences for specific
offenses, instead moved forward and decreed that offenders should serve a
defined mandatory minimum sentence.
Congress determined that district courts may move downward from the
mandatory minimum sentence only in limited circumstances. For example,
the Anti-Drug abuse act has two exceptions, the first exception comes in if a
defendant cooperates with government, and then the government files a
motion for a downward departure from the standard minimum. The second
exception occurs with the use of the safety valve, this allows judges to
avoid applying the mandatory minimum for non-violent drug offenders that

meet specific criteria regarding criminal history, lack of injury to others,

leadership, and violence.
The sources I found most helpful for the history of this topic are "Tough
On Crime Or Tough Luck For The Incarcerated? Exploring The Adverse Psychological
Impacts Of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing And Pushing For Action." By Robert
Nesmith and "Why Can't We End Mass Incarceration?." By Nick Pinto. I found that
these two sources have extensive history for Mandatory Minimum Sentencing which
I will be able to use for the history portion of my research paper. Although these
sources have history portions I will like to do more research because I feel that the
history of mandatory sentencing is very important because the laws that were first
established has lead us to the problems of mass incarceration we have today.

Since the mandatory minimum sentencing law was passed there have
been two significant bills to revise this law. The bills differ but have the same
common goal which is to alleviate the harsh sentencing that these laws have
produced. The first bill is the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013. This bill allows
judges to exempt certain offenders mainly drug offenders from the
mandatory minimum sentencing. This law can be used if the court finds that
the minimum sentencing is an unjust sentence for the crime. To do this the
judge would need to state on the record their reasoning for using this bill.
The second is the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013. This bill is much more
specific because it cannot be used for every mandatory minimum sentence,
this can only be applied to non-violent drug crimes. Judges may impose this
bill if the court finds that the defendant does not have more than two

criminal history points, and the offender was not convicted of a disqualifying
offense.
The most recent reform is the Sentencing Reform & Correction Act of
2015. This two-part bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate in October 2015 By
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Richard
Durbin. This bill was designed to reduce several federal mandatory
minimums for drug and gun sentences and make the reductions retroactive
for some people. this law will also make the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
retroactive, make changes to the Safety Valve, and allow inmates to earn
time credits for completing rehabilitation programs offered to them in prison.
Although these suggestions are great steps in the right direction I will argue
that the mandatory minimums should be abolished for non-violent drug
offenders, instead provide alternatives like rehabilitation and other programs.
These Programs will help reduce mass incarceration as well as improving the
lives of many.
NESMITH, ROBERT C. "Tough On Crime Or Tough Luck For The Incarcerated?
Exploring The Adverse Psychological Impacts Of Mandatory Minimum
Sentencing And Pushing For Action." Law & Psychology Review 39.
(2015): 253-266. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
Tonry, Michael. "Remodeling American Sentencing: A Ten-Step Blueprint For
Moving Past Mass Incarceration." Criminology & Public Policy 13.4
(2014): 503-533. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.

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

Phi Forum 82.1 (2002): 24. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Dec.
2016.
Pinto, Nick. "Why Can't We End Mass Incarceration?." Rolling Stone 1247
(2015): 36-39. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Dec. 2016.