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. While I believe, criminals should know the consequences of their

actions, I also believe each case is different and should be sentenced differently than another case

with completely different circumstances, you would think that everyone should get a sentence

that is determined by their unique case in a fair court of law {Need to word differently}. 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 {I think this is a good thesis statement to lay out the whole essay and shows my view

on the topic}.

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.

{Need to rewrite whole paragraph, gives to many of my main points away all in one paragraph

when I am talking and explaining each point in more detail in later paragraphs}

The use of mandatory minimum sentencing has created more harsh punishments {Need

to stop using to much of the same words like punishments, hard, and sentences} 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. {Showed my voice on the topic to differentiate between what

they say and I say}

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. {My favorite point and

paragraph so far, feel like I showed the topic well and was able to express my opinion clearly}

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% {I believe use of statistics are very helpful

in helping arguments} 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 as

long as their sentencing was not a mandatory minimum sentence. {Overall needs to be worded

better, have more examples and topics, longer, and have a conclusion}