by Maribeth Woods

Created on: November 16, 2008

Mandatory sentencing is a criminal sentence that establishes a minimum length of prison time to be served for a specific crime, it also limits the amount of discretion a judge has when sentencing the defendant. The sentence is based on the type of drug and the weight of the drug, and in federal cases any prior convictions are based upon the sentence as well. Congress enacted these mandatory sentences in order to target the kingpins and managers of drug distributions; and the defendant would receive a fixed sentence regardless of any mitigating factors or culpability. In my opinion I disagree with the laws of mandatory sentencing, and feel that it should not be a fixed sentence and that the judges should be able to have discretion in these cases.

The reason I disagree is because prisons are becoming overcrowded and by keeping the drug offenders in prison for a fixed amount of time causes them to become backed-up and makes less room for more violent offenders which deserve mandatory minimum sentences such as assaults, rapes, etc. A website called Speak Out discusses the cons of mandatory sentencing and state, "As the number of inmates incarcerated for drug-related crimes has increased along with the lengths of prison terms since the passage of the 1986 law, the general prison population has swelled and resulted in overcrowded facilities". These sentences are also costly, and the money is coming right out of the taxpayers' pockets. The government spends billions of dollars on drug offenders alone every year just by keeping them locked up. Instead, this money should be going to educating them, helping them find ways to not use drugs, and by teaching them how to apply for jobs, etc. It is better to show a drug user how to write a check, how to fill out a job application, and even how to do dishes; than to release them after their sentence is up and have them go back to the streets with no skills which they can use in life. Kingpins and the highest levels of drug dealers usually don't end up serving the mandatory minimum anyway because they usually provide information and assistance to prosecutors in federal cases which gives them lee-way and allows for a deal to be made. The Drug Policy Alliance Network states, "Mandatory sentencing does not eliminate sentencing disparities; mandatory minimums fail to punish high-level dealers".

Even though mandatory sentences may seem like a good idea, and that they may possibly deter crime this is not how I feel. I disagree with the laws of mandatory sentencing and feel that they cause prison overcrowding, unjustly costs not only to the prisons budgets but to our society as well, since the money comes out of our pockets. Also judges are not allowed to adjust a sentence based on the defendants life style, motives, recidivism rates, etc. which can often be crucial information for a case. If the sentences were not fixed, judges would be allowed to look at any mitigating factors as well as other components which may prove useful in determining an offender's sentence.

These sentences were enacted to target the kingpins and highest level drug offenders, but these are the ones who are receiving less slack from them sentences. Sentences should be looked at on an individual level, and not a fixed level.

Learn more about this author, Maribeth Woods.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.