Arguments Against Mandatory Sentencing
Mandatory Minimum sentencing usually is defined when a judge is determined to deliver a fixed amount of years in prison to an individual for a convicted crime. Most mandatory minimum sentences apply to drug offenses but it also applies to other crimes, like having an unlicensed gun, fraud, and many others. Mandatory Minimum legislature contributes to the truth that America has a systematic problem in the increase of mass incarceration and men of color are being deprived of their natural rights. The mandatory minimum sentence doesn’t resolve the dilemma of crime. American nonviolent drug offenses should be prosecuted, but Mandatory Minimum sentencing should be eradicated.
Mass incarceration refers to the way the United States has locked up …show more content…
In the text “Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms” By Evan Bernick and Paul Larkin,it stated, “Mandatory minimum sentences also prevent crime because certain and severe punishment inevitably will have a deterrent effect.” In other words, sentencing a person with a precise amount time in prison would leave a long-term effect on the person that they would mostly like not commit another crime. Their statement is invalid because in the article “ Against his better Judgement” by Eli Saslow, it states, “But most mandatory sentences applied to drug charges and according to police data, drug use had remained steady since the 1980’s even as the number of drug offenders in federal prison increased by 2,200 percent.” That being said, drug use rates neither increased nor changed but Mandatory Minimum sentencing, once again, fed into the increase of prison rates.
Therefore, Mandatory Minimum sentencing should be abolished but the nonviolent drug offenses should still be taken to court. The Mandatory Minimum sentencing has some decent intentions but there needs to be some type of change or beneficial results in order for it to be effective. It weighs more bad rather than good, which justifies that America needs to expunge this system, so as to where America can be an eminent
Mass incarceration refers to the way the United States has locked up …show more content…
In the text “Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms” By Evan Bernick and Paul Larkin,it stated, “Mandatory minimum sentences also prevent crime because certain and severe punishment inevitably will have a deterrent effect.” In other words, sentencing a person with a precise amount time in prison would leave a long-term effect on the person that they would mostly like not commit another crime. Their statement is invalid because in the article “ Against his better Judgement” by Eli Saslow, it states, “But most mandatory sentences applied to drug charges and according to police data, drug use had remained steady since the 1980’s even as the number of drug offenders in federal prison increased by 2,200 percent.” That being said, drug use rates neither increased nor changed but Mandatory Minimum sentencing, once again, fed into the increase of prison rates.
Therefore, Mandatory Minimum sentencing should be abolished but the nonviolent drug offenses should still be taken to court. The Mandatory Minimum sentencing has some decent intentions but there needs to be some type of change or beneficial results in order for it to be effective. It weighs more bad rather than good, which justifies that America needs to expunge this system, so as to where America can be an eminent