|
|
Mandatory Sentences: Effective or Waste of Money? In the 1980’s a crime wave swept over American cities. The public and politicians began to complain that offenders were being released before serving terms that were long enough. The states wanted to send a clear message: If you do the crime, you will do the time. State legislatures responded by enacting mandatory sentences: “a sentence stipulating that some minimum period of incarceration must be served by people convicted of selected crimes, regardless of background or circumstances” (Cole, 2003 p. 73). As a part of this “the judge may not consider the circumstances of the offense or the background of the offender, and may not impose sentences that do not involve incarceration” (Cole, 2003, p. 73). These mandatory prison sentences are used most often when the crime is of a violent nature, for recurrent criminals, drug offenses, or when firearms are used. These laws have become increasingly popular and are frequently used for drug offenses. Some arguments for and against the use of mandatory minimums are usually seen pertaining to issues such as punishment, fairness, deterrence, and justice. To some proponents of these laws, “the certainty and severity of mandatory minimums make them better able to achieve incarceration’s goals than more flexible sentencing policies” (Caulkins, et al., 1997). According to them, those goals included punishing offenders and keeping them from committing more crimes as well as deterring others who are not in prison from committing similar crimes. Those against worry that “mandatory minimums foreclose discretionary judgment where it may most be needed, and they fear mandatory minimums result in instances of unjust punishment” (Caulkins, et al., 1997).
|
