Are Mandatory Minimum Setencing Laws Fair?
Question by Mark dw: Are Mandatory Minimum Setencing Laws Fair?
I’m not against the notion of Crime and Punishment. However, I am against mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Criminals commit crimes for a variety of reasons, and while none of them may be for the “right” reason, I believe that there are multiple mitigating factors in most cases. This being said, does it not seem wrong for legislatures to take all sentencing discretion away from judges by passing these mandatory minimum sentencing laws? Should not a judge be able to take into account multiple factors regarding a defendants life and the circumstances of the crime when passing sentence upon him? With over 1 out of every 100 adults in this country incarcerated, something must be wrong with the system as it now stands. I am curious as to others’ opinions on this matter.
Best answer:
Answer by ornery and mean
As a resident of NY State … home of the draconian “Rockerfeller Drug Laws” I am in an unusually good position to answer your question.
Sane mandatory minimum sentencing laws CAN help reduce the disparity in sentencing between protected minority defendants (as described by federal guidelines) and white male defendants. (I’m a white male and I believe that, in some courts, presided over by a minority of judges, there is a proven disparity in sentencing based more on the defendant than the crime. White male defendants seem to get an easier sentence in some courts for drug related crimes!)
Having said that … a person busted for a dime bag of weed should NOT be sentenced to more time than a violent felon! It serves no real purpose!
I agree with mandatory minimum sentences that are sanely applied acrossed the board. The problems arise when possession of crack (poor people’s cocaine) is punished more severely then possession of powdered cocaine (rich man’s coke) by a factor of 100 to 1!
Give your answer to this question below!
Related Cocaine Possession Laws Information…