Mandatory Sentencing 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

Police Courts and Corrections According to Merrill and Fox (1999) the total impact of substance abuse on Federal entitlement programs is more than $77 billion. This constitutes in excess of $66 billion directly associated with substance abuse. Further, the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on substance abuse would accounts for nearly 10% of total Federal spending (Merrill and Fox, 1999). The cost of drug use affects the entire criminal justice

In that regard, sentences imposed for crack cocaine are so much harsher that approximately 100 times as much powdered cocaine is required to approach the sentences imposed in connection with crack cocaine offenses. This issue is particularly relevant to the disparity inherent in mandatory sentencing and arbitrariness in sentencing, especially since dealers in powdered cocaine are much more likely higher up on the supply chain than distributors of crack cocaine

Therefore, by increasing the costs of imprisonment by the three strikes law, it is intended that there will be less crime. Marwell and Moody express several difficulties with the laws in the 24 states: Criminals are not always aware of the laws, at least not initially; repeat criminals can be expected to serve substantial prison terms even in the absence of the laws; almost all of the states already

Variations of the area court model, such as teen courts, medicine courts, and household physical violence courts, focus on specific concerns in order to establish even more extensive options. The underlying presumption of neighborhood courts is that neighborhoods are deeply damaged by the sentencing procedure yet are seldom spoken with and associated with judicial results. Correcting Community justice has actually been slowest to show up in the correctional industry. Maybe this

Baker reviewed three landmark Supreme Court decisions on capital punishment and concluded that the death penalty is capriciously imposed on Black defendants and thus serves the extra-legal function of preserving majority group interests. He viewed discrimination in capital sentencing as deliberate and identified the primary reasons why Black defendants with white victims have been denied fairness in capital sentencing. These are prosecutorial discretion in the selective prosecution of capital