Public policy, crime, and criminal justice
Mandatory Sentencing: Case Study Critique
The prime grounds of mandatory sentencing laws are utilitarian. The laws come with long prison sentences for recidivists, drug dealers and isolation of violent criminals from the community aiming at preventing them from committing additional crimes outside the prison walls. In addition, the design of mandatory sentencing aim at deterring and portraying a harsh reflection to potential offenders of the harsh consequences that awaits them in case they commit a crime. The lawmakers have made imprisonment both surer and more severe in order to respond to constituent issues concerning crime and safety, and to achieve the wide intention of general criminal deterrence.
The forbidding of courts from suspending trials or placing offenders on probation makes imprisonment more probable. Into the bargain, the increase in statutory devices raises the severity of sentences. Some statutes, for instance, require the sentenced offender to serve a mandatory minimum prison term that otherwise would not apply to the commission of the crime. In addition, other provisions increase both the statutory minimum and maximum sentences that the court would finally impose. Some other statutes require consecutive sentences for the underlying offense and the initiating situation.
In other cases, statutes increase the severity by restricting administrative discretion, by either impeding or eliminating parole eligibility, or by forbidding sentence credit for exceptional behavior while serving in prison. However, most of the statutes combine many of the elements hence requiring judges to sentence offenders to prison and ensure that the incarceration is lengthy. In so doing, it helps in achieving deterrence and incapacitation, without regard to judicious punishment in individual trials. This concept of mandatory sentencing is not new because the colonial laws developed fixed penalties for many criminal offenses and allowed courts little or no flexibility when imposing punishment in individual cases.
The current mandatory sentences vary from the fixed sentences imposed during the colonial times. Most of the current laws do not impose the sentences for criminal offenders themselves, but instead, it requires an increased punishment when a situation comes up in connection with the commission of an offence. For instance, the law forbids trafficking for particular drugs, such as cocaine. The common sentencing for a first violation for the statute of this crime is imprisonment without a minimum term and a maximum term for up to twenty years in prison (Akuno and Eisen, 2013). The aim of mandatory sentencing is to achieve an increased minimum sentence with no imprisonment to five years and then to ten years and assure that sentenced offenders serve significant prison terms.
In addition, the mandatory sentences aim to eliminate the application of probation and suspended sentences. Additionally, a broad variety of situations initiates modified penalties according to the statutes. Most authorities have accepted provisions that require an individual to serve longer prisoner sentences when an individual is in possession or uses dangerous weapons during the execution of a crime. Some general targets of mandatory sentences are individuals who have or circulate forbidden drugs that exceed a certain amount, those who commit violent offences against vulnerable such as children, the aged people and those who commit offenses while released from prison for other crimes (Bjerk, 2005). Since the proliferation of mandatory sentences, the prison populations have increased dramatically. Mainly, this happens because the mandatory sentences give prosecutions substantial advantage when it comes to bargaining.
For instance, a prosecutor can charge a serious mandatory sentence enhancement that a court will have to deliver if an offender faces conviction during a trial. The harsher the sentence the offender risks facing trial, the higher the prosecutorial power to dictate the terms of plea agreements. Therefore, a prosecutor can make an offender plead guilty to severe punitive terms than an offender would have objected (Cohen and Doob, 1990). This means that the law has increased the determinate sentencing ranges and has endorsed mandatory sentencing in reaction to political pressures from constituents. The mandatory sentence leads to variations embodied in the legislative judgments concerning deterrence and serious mandatory sentences. In addition, by their very nature they also influence and change the processes of the criminal legal system.
Purpose of this critique
Mandatory sentencing is applicable in a wide range of crimes such as murder, drug trafficking, and many other offences. For this particular paper, I chose drug trafficking as the area of focus. Therefore, this paper will analyze a drug trafficking case study to provide a critique paper on mandatory sentencing.
Theoretical and conceptual issues
The primary aim of this critique was to evaluate the utilitarian elements of the mandatory sentences; that is the probable crime preventive advantages of such sentences. As suggested by the law, some of the benefits can come up via incapacitation, deterrence, denunciation or education. Owing to the fact that sentences already tend to exist in areas where mandatory sentences apply (such as murder, gun related crimes, impaired driving) illustrating that a given mandatory sentence has an absolute deterrent or incapacitation affect is inadequate. Therefore, it is apparent that there is a need to establish additional benefits of incorporating mandatory sentences in crimes.
In addition, owing to some of the preventive nature of the mandatory sentences, it is significant to establish the effect of the severity of sentences. For instance, if the perceived severity will result in fewer guilty pleas and most cases progressing to trial (Alexander, 2010). There arises an issue because mandatory sentences apply to a broad range of sanctions in the globe, from mandatory license restrictions, imposed fines for impaired driving to mandatory life provisions and even calling for death penalties for particular groups of cases. Therefore, from a persona perspective, the mandatory sentencing regime has only brought about more problems. I suggest that, different levels of severity will need separate consideration instead of perceiving them from an equal view (Van Dine, Dinitz and Conrad, 1979).
Review of literature
From a policy point-of-view, the trends of literature concerning mandatory minimum drug sentencing are profusely negative. In addition, most of the studies comment that mandatory minimum sentencing requirements represent the result towards the War on Drugs. Some of the impacts of the drug war including detrimental impacts on people of color and the poor are some of the issues of debate among policy makers. Advocates of mandatory minimum sentencing and the fight against drugs tend to believe that drug policies overall impacts on the society has yielded beneficial outcomes (Anderson, 2006). Additionally, those who support mandatory minimum sentencing reflect their support of the Drug War in general. Some of the advocates and supporters include police agencies, substance prohibition groups and anti-drug jurists.
However, there are opponents of the drug war; mandatory sentencing and drug crime prejudices suggest that the costs had catastrophic impacts on the nation. Additionally, the cost has affected people from different races and the poor. This is because their rationale for subsequent opposition divides the opponents. Additionally, a look at the survey conducted by the Rand Drug Policy Research Center, the drug way eats substantially into finances on penalization and enforcement than reduction and prevention. Again, when considering the money spent on the aspects, the methodological approach, applied for execution is inadequate making it ineffective. Additionally, the study concluded that even with an increased expenditure, the gain in reducing illegal drug usage would not show significant change (Caulkins and Rand Drug Policy Research Center, 1997).
The drug war perpetuation by judges and prosecutors has not intentionally ruled by bias based on race. Instead, the drug war’s racial animus is institutional and judges know that their promulgation is discriminatory when utilizing mandatory minimum sentencing standards as outlined in the law, but they have not challenged the laws, which they know have bias. In a personal perspective, I think that the drug war was purposefully endorsed for racial policy, so as to damper the political and social stance of individual based on color. Other opponents have a similar disregard of mandatory minimum requirements and drug laws, but they base their argument from a different point-of-view (McDowell, Loftin and Wiersema, 1992). Some assert that the physical harm to families from different races, political ideologies, poverty, and the youth based on color by drug laws from a social harm that destroys the nature of the society.
Based on the above arguments from different literatures, I think that the drug war is not only problematic concerning its secondary outcomes of diminished civil freedoms caused by war. I also feel that in the name of prosecuting drug war, the courts have neglected or rejected constitutional protections against state intrusion and personal freedom. I base my argument on the historical perspective of the drug war, how it formed out of primary political views. Another study suggests that the mandatory minimum sentencing in the fight against drugs is just an insight into the institutional of racism perpetuated by the criminal justice system. For instance, in America, the system began with the criminal legal system adjusting over time in reaction to the civil rights period, efficiently becoming a focal point for social disenfranchisements, formerly outlined in the law.
Afterwards, the constructing of the justice system aimed at criminalizing the “equal” African-American; additionally, the system also ensured that the social position of African-Americans was not equal to those of their white counterparts. From history, dating back to the era of Nixon, the president of America, this was done through the establishment of the “Drug War” as a strategy to gain support from whites in the south by advocating for policies in opposing civil rights and racial equality related initiatives. The system also changed via conservative justices on the courts who would endorse reductions to the fourth Amendment protections against many illegal searches, seizures of property and wrongful detentions. From the arguments presented in some studies, I strongly agree that there exist civil liberty issues in relation to the mandatory sentencing and the “War on Drugs.”
Judicial Policy Makers
There is inadequate consensus in the criminal justice courts as to the endorsement of the mandatory minimum sentencing and the utilization in the drug war. A case study on the American Supreme Court, it is apparent that it has taken much drug war legislation over the Last four decades. While some of the cases resulted from civil liberties challenges that were the result of techniques used to take into custody suspects or acquire evidence in drug arrests, some result from challenges to the legality of policies and penalties imposed on the usage of drugs. I think the judicial enforcement concerning the prejudice on drug laws and policies such as mandatory minimum sentencing is similar to judges who ignorantly enforce fugitive slave laws. This is because, the judges knew of the unfairness of the laws enforced, but they enforced them at the expense of someone else’s responsibility to alter the bad laws.
Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Blakely was one of the people who questioned the validity of the mandatory minimum sentences in relation to the constitution. The case involved a man who faced higher sentencing than initially given for kidnapping. The state law allowed for increase in the penalty if a case met specific conditions such as intentional cruelty. However, Blakely appealed based on violation of the sixth amendment right to have a jury determine beyond reasonable doubts all information significant to his punishment (Hall, 2009). The conclusion from the court was an additional sentence increased due to the judge’s determination that the accused acted with deliberate cruelty, which violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by the jury. From this kind of ruling I suggest that the design of mandatory sentencing should provide an analysis of the arguments that led to the ruling against Blakely apply. In addition, I feel that since mandatory sentencing was not the initial interpretation of the following ruling on the case, it should have shown restrictions on application than it was, specifically in the form of restrictions when it came to parole (Hall, 2009).
Racial Disparities in Sentencing and Prosecution
The reduction in protection offered by the fourth Amendment, intrusion came in disguised in eliminating the drug war, law enforcement, prosecutors and prosecutors openly engaged in targeting criminalization purposed to apprehend African-Americans. From the several studies emerging on the issue of mandatory sentencing, I can certainly say that the general defense arguments for the increase in penalizations such as mandatory minimum sentencing, the drug war primarily targeted policing, racial profiling, is that actually, the practice led to reduced criminal activities (Starr and Rehavi, 2013). In addition, there is an assumption that because of the presence of Blacks in prison, they must represent a larger criminal population out there, which led to imprisonment of many other blacks and claim it is a strategy to reduce crime (Human Rights Watch, 2008).
A typical example of disparity is apparent when one compares the war on drunk driving in relation to the use crack cocaine when driving. The rate of fatalities resulting from drunk driving exceeds that of deaths related to crack cocaine. However, the punishment accorded to people for drunk driving is a concise jail sentence, a fine and temporary retraction of an individual’s capacity to operate a vehicle. In comparison to possession of crack cocaine, whereby, before the enactment of Fair Sentencing Act, possessing of even a little amount carried a 5-year mandatory minimum sentencing, accompanied with many criminal standards having similar or higher punishments (Provine, 2007). Owing to the fact that many of the drunken driving cases primarily associated with the whites, and crack cocaine associated with the blacks, I can strongly suggest that there was a biased reason behind mandatory sentencing to target the black people.
The use of anti-drug legislation was a significant tool to marginalize the poor and black American population, together with their politicians and administrators. However, it appeared in a racial and antagonistic manner. Although the drug war emerged as a health concern, when in action, the administrators used it as means of criminal justice reform and redirection. In addition, I feel that the drug war was a strategy or a method to woe voters or show them the need to have a strong government to protect the public from the perceived “criminal minorities,” mainly who were the black Americans, who supposedly victimized the white American citizens.
A study on the rate of criminal offending and drug usage among the whole population suggests that the black American population risked arrest 10 times more on drug charges compared to their white counterparts. The study also suggests that the greatest disparities were apparent in Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Virginia, Colorado and Pennsylvania. The black Americans comprised of 14% of the population, representing 33% of all the arrests and 53% of drug related crimes incarcerated in 2003. Therefore, a closer evaluation of the results, I can strongly assert that the drug war is a synonymous to a race war, or a new form of black codes (black codes- post reconstruction law purposed at making the black Americans a second-class citizen standard within the American society).
In addition, it is evident that the mandatory minimum sentencing has worked as something between a sophisticated restraint, and an apparent attack against the black population of America. The drug war managed to create an unspoken racial state system within the society similar to the racial hierarchy presented by Jim Crow. For instance, in the year 2001, the number of black Americans in Illinois State was 20,000 compared to those enrolled to public universities. In addition, the rate of blacks in prison for drug crimes alone was high compared to those enrolled to public universities. It is apparent that the drug legislation targeted drugs used by the African-American population, as well as restrictions on civil liberties and extreme law enforcers who targeted the blacks in the metropolises around the nation (Human Rights Watch, 2008).
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Mandatory minimum sentencing in relation to drug offenses came by way of two different legislative actions. The sentencing Reform Act, which was part of the comprehensive Crime Control Act aimed at forcing a consistency in sentencing for criminal crimes in the national level. It was among the initial attempts to mandate corrective principles for judges and juries. Additionally, the Act led to the creation of the Federal Sentencing Commission, a branch of the federal government, accountable for creating a consistency in criminal sentencing. The same Act also brought to an end the federal paroling of inmates (Petersilia and Greenwood, 1978). Therefore, the liberal and conservative politicians advocated the move from a rehabilitative model to a punitive stance because it worked well in retaining the public’s support.
A study conducted by the Rand Corporation on the impact of Drug War and Mandatory sentencing commented that opting for rehabilitative approach was effective in the reducing of recidivism, and drug war substantially. However, the approach would substantially tax effective when it came to taxpayers than focusing on instutionalization. The study also revealed that conventional and policing is cost efficient compared to mandatory minimum sentencing when assessing the costs incurred during appeals, imprisonment and processing. Additionally, it is apparent from the study that mandatory minimums do have a significantly positive effect compared to conventional enforcement on dealers and users (Baldus, Pulaski and Woodworth, 2009). In addition, the treatment and rehabilitation precautions other than longer punitive sentences were equally effective in reducing recidivism because they did not require large finances reducing the burden on taxpayers.
Racialization of Drug Enforcement
While this policy known as the “War on Drugs” suggested that its primary aim was to curb illegal drug dealings, the politics behind it have made it apparent that its main intention was to incriminate the African-American population. Although the policy failed drastically in its aim of curbing drug usage, the real political objectives of initiating a systematic destabilization and disenfranchisement among the African-American population, the success was overwhelming. It is apparent that the war on drugs had a substantial impact on the African-American disguised and executed by the criminal legal system. It is factual that the African-American uses drugs, but it is only a small fraction, and the “war on drugs” policy targets the larger fraction for incarceration for drug abuse and selling.
For instance, the African-American are less than 12% of those who use drugs, but 34% of individuals apprehended for crimes related to drugs, while 45% of the population apprehended for drug crimes. The prejudice seen between offending and enforcement brings up some serious questions as to the nature of the “drug war” policy, law enforcement and legal system concerning the African-Americans. From a historical perspective, the implementation and utilization of racial identity politics in a manner of associating negative or criminal characteristics to racial minorities is not a new ideology (Bjerk, 2005). For instance, the political approach referred to “southern strategy” put forward by Nixon, aimed at gaining support from conservative white voters. They dwelled in the south, and held negative conceptions about the African-American. The approach was successful in providing a base for the drug war and garnering support, which primarily influences the African-American population (Baldus, Pulaski and Woodworth, 2009).
The Fair Sentencing Act, enacted in 2010, helped to reduce the sentencing disparity between crimes involving crack and crimes involving cocaine. The passing of the Act saw to an end of the mandatory minimum 5-year sentence for possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine and above, as well as reduced the prejudice between crack and cocaine punishments.
This critique paper takes a regional case study to provide a comprehensive breakdown of mandatory sentencing and enforcement of policy prejudices. The paper utilized pre-existing economic, social and medical data relating to the subject matter. Analysis of the data will borrow from the Supreme Court cases, which had a relation to the War on Drugs and Mandatory Sentencing. Additionally, the critique paper will include a legal analysis of the predisposing factors to the case. Afterwards, the critique paper will provide a broad evaluation of mandatory minimum sentencing.
The mandatory sentencing has proved to be a major form of disguised discrimination because the focus on specific kinds of offences such as drug related crimes, have tended to target certain groups of people. In addition, given that the discretion of the judicial system, young people may end up in prison (Bjerk, 2005). This is primarily because of ignorance of factors such as age or mental illness, which are patterns of criminal offending pertaining special groups of people including children. In additional, a potential consequence of mandatory sentencing is the potential elimination of justice as part of the plea bargaining process. For instance, pleading guilty in exchange of dropped charges is a typical example of the inappropriate trade-offs brought about by mandatory sentencing (Cohen and Doob, 1990).
The punishment provided is not effective compared to deterrent because of the manner in which some circumstances shape the offender’s behaviors. Under the mandatory sentencing, there is a probability of continued committing of violent crimes because the punishment is clear in advance. Another significant issue is the controversy on whether mandatory sentencing results to the reduction of crime. This is hard to know because it is difficult to realize changes in the levels of crime. In addition, owing to the little evidences that the sentences reduce crime, it is not wise to conclude that mandatory sentencing is effective.
It is not clear whether mandatory sentences bring any good to the victims. It is debatable that the practice actually siphons money that would go further into helping the victims and offender punishment. For instance, the mandatory sentences cut in initiatives such as restorative justice, which would provide victims a direct participation in the legal process, offering something beneficial to the victims (Bargaric, 2002). Owing to the fact that the mandatory sentencing would only lead the offender back to prison, and realizing that prisons are breeding grounds for criminality and criminal behavior, the sentences are not helping, rather making crime develop in a disguised manner. The imposition of mandatory sentencing will only lead to grave injustices in relation to the target groups who the legislation affects most.
Results and discussion
A great deal of policy aimed at the War on Drugs resulted due to several court cases that promulgated mandatory sentencing. Among the popular cases, involving the drug war and mandatory sentencing is Gant. Arizona v. Gant is a case that led to modification of an earlier case, New York v. Belton. This happened by stating a search of the passenger compartments of a car after apprehension of a passenger is not constitutional once the arrested individual has successfully been secured and cannot access the vehicle. Additionally, this Belton Rule allowed searches to take place without specification of warrants for any cause upon apprehension of a passenger. Although searching vehicles for illegal substances may act as a counter initiative, the arrest should not direct on drug offences, or any severe offences. However, the legal system has different justifications to allow for the arrest such as general suspicion of illegal actions and obstruction of public officials.
In addition to portraying restrictions in its strife to bring civil liberties with the capacity of the state to achieve its War on Drugs, the court had a chance to react concerning the issue of racial prejudice within the legal system. Evidence from a study conducted by the University of Lowa, showed that within Georgia, the death penalty had ties to the race of the victim and the defendant (Cockburn and St., 1998). The study suggested that it was more likely for an African-American to receive a death sentence compared to their white counterparts. The case of Whren v. United States is a typical example of a case that tied drug war and racial profiling. The case involved a pre-textual stop but the court tied the case to an officer’s claim of a possible traffic violation.
Efficiency of Mandatory Sentencing
The War on Drugs policy failed miserably. This is because the Department of Health and Human Services reported that the drug usage is still static since the endorsement of the drug was. However, the costs incurred in the process of fighting have increased at an exponential rate. In estimation, the initiative used a trillion dollars in the fight, with around 51, 000,000, spent yearly in maintenance of drug war policies. Owing to such amounts of money used, I think the law has only brought damage to the poor and minority groups, and I feel it is time to dismantle the flawed policy. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, saw to a reduction of disparity between federally mandated sentences for crack cocaine crimes, including powder cocaine crimes, which the African-American are the majority committers. While the step was positive in regards to the beneficial results, the emphasis on a policy that enhances disparities when it comes to sentences signals that the issue still exists and it is racially stemmed against the African-Americans.
Deterrence and Incapacitation
From a practical perspective, a lengthy mandatory sentence must show to have deterrent and incapacitative effects. The evidence from studies concerning deterrence suggests that the potential offender population constitutes of two broad categories. The society including casual offenders, which is perceived to rationally decide on what crimes to commit. The rationale extends to awareness and the consideration of threat, including the penal sentences (Marvell and Moody, 1996). The second group is enmeshed in criminal behaviors as a lifestyle or career. Individuals in this group are not social, brave on legal sanctions even prison.
From a utilitarian perspective, the incapacitation of casual or low-rate offenders for long periods will lead to overusing the legal system resources, especially when the offenders react by utilizing appeals and the risk of penal sanctions. Additionally, incapacitation for long periods stands as the only recourse for highly active career criminals who will not react to the risk of penal sanctions or to appeals. The variation among offenders has led to occasional calls to implement selective incapacitation approaches. In so doing, however, may also lead to problems because of the several prediction flaws and undermining of the guidelines of proportionality and the presumption of innocence (Correll, Judd and Wintenbrik, 2002).
Mandatory Sentences for Firearm Crimes
Most of the mandatory sentences deal with firearm offences. The sentence will require a one-year minimum penalty for an individual who uses a firearm during the execution of a crime, and a three-year mandatory sentence for consequent convictions. Additionally, an individual will need to serve the sentences consecutively to any other sanction imposed for the primary crime. In addition, criminals who used guns knew about the consequences of carrying such weapons. Into the bargain, from a study conducted by Harding (1990), suggested they would carry a gun the next time they planned to commit a robbery. Therefore, owing to such a statement, means that although the robbers knew of the consequences brought about by the mandatory sentences, they would continue committing crime. In addition, from a personal judgment, this may mean that awareness of penal sanction is not a guarantee that criminal behavior will change (Loftin, Heumann and McDowall, 1983).
Mandatory Sentences for Impaired Driving
There are several methodological impediments to evaluate the impacts of mandatory sentencing on impaired driving because the legal sanctions often charge them for alcohol abuse. In addition, further assessments in this area are the role played by educational campaigns. This is because the public campaigns tend to accompany new legislative initiatives on the crime making it hard to sort out the significance of deterrent and denunciatory effects. Several studies have indicated that mandatory sentences characterized by increased severity do not decrease recidivism rates or accidents resulting from alcohol or impaired driving. Another study suggests that impaired driving is an exceptional crime because alcohol consumption is inherent to the offense. Additionally, the study reveals that offenders commit the crimes but do not respond to sentences such as revocation of licenses mainly because of the substance abuse challenge.
Estimating the Effects of Hypothetical Mandatory Sentences
Brown (1998) evaluated the probable impact of mandatory sentences through an assessment of the attributes of a national sample of 613 offenders released from New Zealand state prisons in the year 1986. The offenders were either released halfway through their sentences on parole or had already served two-thirds of their sentence. Additionally, a study by Van Dine, Dinitiz and Conrad (1979), revealed that a five-year mandatory sentence imposed for serious offences had the capacity to reduce the felony rate by just 1-4%. Although this s the case, the crime reduction rate going down, the prison population showed significant rise. Therefore, the mandatory sentencing had the capacity to increase the prison population. A primary concern with the mandatory sentencing is on the commission of a number of specific crimes (such as collective incapacitation), is that the sentences apply to individuals who are on the risk spectrum, hence a false assumption that individuals who receive such sentences will repeat the offence if not incarcerated.
The malicious nature of the drug war, mandatory sentencing and racial profiling in the criminal justice systems ensures that any solution to these challenges will need a sophisticated nature. The evidence of the miserable failure of the drug war legislation, the disparities in the criminal justice system and the destruction makes it apparent that the drug was not for any good. The policies embodied in the drug war such as mandatory minimum sentencing cause substantial problems, and do not offer any solutions to the challenge. However, I offer a fourfold solution; mandatory sentencing reform and endorsed equity in sentencing, strengthening the bans on racial prejudice, and increased observation and scrutiny of law enforcement and court administrators for racial prejudices, and drug decriminalization.
Another issue that needs reform is the prison industrial culture. The political, economical and societal industry aims at increasing incarceration regardless of the actual increases in the criminal offending. The prison construction and investment have allowed or created lucrative environments for corporate and private investment. Such an environment will create profit incentives for constructing and filling prisons resulting in the investors to support politicians who endorse the increases in incarceration and mandatory sentencing to enhance the growth of the prison population. The policy on War on Drugs are among others that will contribute to the increase of the prison population and to reform this, it will first call for ending the contracting of prison constructions and maintenance by the private investors.
Reformation of the mandatory sentencing will require a complete eradication of the federal crack-cocaine disparity, rather than decreasing it as the Fair Sentencing Act aims at accomplishing. This would also call for additional measures at the national level to ascertain that similar laws are eliminated across the state. In order to enforce equity concerning mandatory sentencing practices, the governments will have to endorse monitoring policies of sentencing practices rather than depending on randomized reports and academic reviews. In situations where disparity is apparent, for instance, an observed trend in charging or sentencing on a particular race or ethnicity, whereby punishment of the offender is harsher due to racial profiling, this would require a review on the particular judge or prosecutor.
Finally, having the government take measures such as decriminalization on usage and limited possession of popular drugs will have a strong influence. This is because such measures will help in reducing the incarceration rates and freeing funds that would help in enforcement for other violent crimes. For instance, decriminalization of Marijuana is a step towards ending the drug war. Additionally, decriminalizing small amounts of heroine, methamphetamine and crack cocaine would significantly cut in the drug war, rather than mandatory sentences, which only eat into the country’s economy. While each of the recommendations would work well to yield positive results, than the current practices, the key step towards achieving is education. Educating the public about the facts about offense rate, sentencing and incarceration, would work well towards achieving the ultimate goal.
Akuno, K., Eisen, A. (2013). Operation Ghetto Storm. Malcolm X Grassroots
Movement. Atlanta. Digital Report. Retrieved from http://mxgm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Operation-Ghetto-Storm.pdf
Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: New Press.
Anderson, J. (2006). Guideline judgments and standard minimum sentencing: an uneasy alliance in the way of the future. Criminal Law Journal, 30, (4), 203 — 23.
Baldus, D.C., Pulaski, C., & Woodworth, G. (2009). Comparative review of death sentences: An
empirical study of the Georgia experience. The journal of criminal law and criminology, 74 (3), 661-753.
Bagaric, M. (2002). What sort of mandatory penalties should we have? Adelaide Law Review,
23, 113 — 39.
Bjerk, D. (2005). Making the Crime Fit the Penalty: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion Under
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. Journal of Law and Economics, 48 (2).
Brown, M. (1998). Serious violence and dilemmas of sentencing: A comparison of three incapacitation policies. Criminal Law Review, 710.
Caulkins, J.P., & Rand Drug Policy Research Center. (1997). Mandatory minimum drug sentences: Throwing away the key or the taxpayers’ money? Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Cockburn, A., & St., C.J. (1998). Whiteout: The CIA, drugs, and the press. London: Verso.
Cohen, S., & Doob, A. (1990). Public attitudes to plea bargaining. Criminal Law Quarterly, 32
(1), 85 — 109.
Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C.M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer’s dilemma: using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6), 1314-29.
Hall, B.R. (2009) Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines by Any Other Name: When Indeterminate
Structured Sentencing Violates Blakely V. Washington. Drake Law Review, 57 (3), 643.
Harding, R.W. (1990). Rational choice gun use in armed robbery: The likely deterrent effect on gun use of mandatory additional imprisonment. Criminal Law Forum, 1, 427.
Human Rights Watch Report (2008). Targeting Blacks. Digital Report. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0508_1.pdf
Loftin, C., Heumann, M. & McDowall, D. (1983). Mandatory sentencing and firearms violence:
Evaluating an alternative to gun control. Law and Society Review, 17(2), 287.
Marvell, T.B. & Moody, C.E. (1996). Determinate sentencing & abolishing parole: The long-
term impacts on prisons and crime. Criminology, 34(1), 107.
McCoy, C., Krone, T. (2002). Mandatory sentencing: lessons from the United States.
Indigenous Law Bulletin, 5 (17), 19 — 22.
McDowall, D., Loftin, C., & Wiersema, B. (1992).Comparative Study of the Preventive Effects
of Mandatory Sentencing Laws for Gun Crimes. Journal of Crimnlology and Law, 83 (2), 379-394.
Petersilia, J. & Greenwood, P.W. (1978). Mandatory prison sentences: Their projected effects on crime and prison population. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 69, 604-615.
Provine, D.M. (2007). Unequal under law: Race in the war on drugs. Chicago: University
Starr, B.S., & Rehavi, M. (2013). Mandatory sentencing and Racial Disparity: Assessing the role of prosecutors and the effects of Booker. Forthcoming Yale Law Journal.
Van Dine, S., Dinitz, S. & Conrad, J.P. (1979). Restraining the wicked. Lexington, Mass:
Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?
- Plagiarism free papers
- Timely delivery
- Any deadline
- Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
- Subject-relevant academic writer
- Adherence to paper instructions
- Ability to tackle bulk assignments
- Reasonable prices
- 24/7 Customer Support
- Get superb grades consistently
Online Academic Help With Different Subjects
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
What discipline/subjects do you deal in?
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
What if I don’t like the paper?
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
- When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
- We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.
In the event that you don’t like your paper:
- The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
- We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
- Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.
Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
What if the paper is plagiarized?
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
When will I get my paper?
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
Will anyone find out that I used your services?
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
How our Assignment Help Service Works
1. Place an order
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
2. Pay for the order
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
3. Track the progress
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
4. Download the paper
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!