Federal Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences and Their

Federal Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences and Their Impact on Recidivism

There is much controversy regarding mandatory sentencing and its impact on the American society throughout recent times. In many ways, prisons are used as a means to control crime, to protect society from it, with criminals being deterred from continuing to commit illegalities as a direct result of the time they spend behind bars. Mandatory minimums were generally introduced with the purpose of preventing future recidivism. The authorities considered that the uncomfortable nature of prison life and the social status associated with being in prison were enough to persuade criminals to refrain from ever expressing interest in illegalities once they were set free. Other schools of thought appear to think just the opposite as some believe that prison time actually has a negative impact on convicts, while others believe that criminals experience little to no change consequent to staying in prison.

Mandatory minimums history

Ever since the early days of the prison system, people believed that one of the main principles behind incarceration involved criminals being deterred from ever committing crimes again. In their attempt to control criminal behavior, law enforcement agencies have concentrated on imposing penalties that would seriously affect criminals and that would influence them to abandon any kind of criminal thinking they considered in the past. Penalties had to be given in accordance with the crime committed and courts thus engaged in a process that would have criminals punished on account of the gravity of their actions (Gendreau & Goggin).

Future criminals typically consider cost-benefit choices when they are about to commit a crime and these respective decisions are practically rational in character. "Deterrence theory is based on the belief that individuals who have an inclination or desire to commit criminal acts will be deterred from acting on their desires by the knowledge and fear of punishment." (Wadman 9) The loss of freedom is typically essential in convincing a criminal to refrain from ever acting on his or her unlawful thoughts in the future. In addition to this, the idea of risking to lose one's freedom is probable to prevent a person from doing illegal actions in general, as he or she does not even have to experience prison in the first place.

The 1952 Boggs Act was largely considered responsible for mandatory minimums being introduced into the U.S. The act increased sentences for various offenses associated with drugs and was largely meant to provide harsh penalties for drug possession regardless of the types or amounts of drugs (Kitwana).

III. Federal mandatory minimum sentences with regard to drug offenses

Law enforcement agents observed how individuals involved in drug-related activities were able to evade the law through a series of strategies. "Because one of the drug dealer's greatest fears may be a prison sentence, experts have suggested that the best deterrent to drug crime is the threat of mandatory incarceration." (Lyman)

Mandatory minimums are basically intended to limit the discretion of judges and thus to provide criminals with a particular set of penalties depending on their crimes. The type and amount of drugs, however, play an essential role in such situations. The criminal's background and whether or not he or she was in possession of a weapon during the crime are also extremely important at this point. All these circumstances can provide judges with flexibility from a point on, as these are about to act in accordance with a mandatory minimum legislation (Gendreau & Goggin). Judges have a say in exceptional cases and they can actually increase an offender's sentence if they consider that the circumstances in which the offense took place dictate such an act. "First-time offenders facing a 10-year minimum sentence could receive anything up to and including life imprisonment, and someone eligible for a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence could receive as long as 40 years." (Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System)

a. Mandatory minimums differ on account of the area where the crime is committed

Federal law promotes the idea that someone who is found in possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine should be provided with the same penalty as a person who possesses 500 grams of powder cocaine (Goldberg 90). Even so, some state legislatures started to establish customized versions of the law because they considered that minimum sentences were either too mild or too harsh. New York's 1973 Rockefeller drug laws claimed "that anyone convicted of selling more than two ounces of cocaine, heroin, or other controlled substances -- or possessing more than four ounces -- be sentenced to a minimum of fifteen years in prison." (Kitwana) Most of the contemporary mandatory minimum sentencing system was devised and implemented by Congress during the 1980s (Kitwana).

b. Mandatory minimums can be harsher for offenders who are recidivists

Offenders who face their face trial as a result of selling a drug that caused serious harm to a user or that killed him or her are liable to getting a mandatory minimum of twenty years. In the case of second-time offenders, the same offense provides a sentence of life in prison. When considering third-time offenders, judges have to provide a mandatory minimum of life in prison without the option of conditional release.

IV. The option to become a government witness

Mandatory minimums have not only been effective in the case of individuals refraining from committing illegalities because they feared the consequences of their actions. In addition to risking extended prison time, an arrested offender is provided with the option to cooperate with the authorities by testifying against his or her supplier. With offenders typically knowing a great deal of information concerning their suppliers, such actions have been extremely successful. According to Lyman, "the informant who is cooperating with authorities in exchange for prosecutorial leniency ("working a beef") has proved to be one of the most powerfully motivated players in the criminal investigation process, and clearly it is the codefendant who is most knowledgeable about a drug-trafficking enterprise."

Police officers apparently believe that mandatory minimums are especially effective in the case of individuals willing to cooperate. This provides them with the opportunity to get leverage, thus better chances in their fight against drug dealers. This way they have the best chances to get to know the enemy territory from the inside. Cooperating is basically the only strategy that offenders can employ with the purpose of reducing their mandatory minimum sentence. However, there were cases where the method failed because of law offenders who provided false information in an attempt to get more moderate penalties (Lyman).

V. Mandatory minimums as crime deterrents

Politicians are typically among the main supporters behind mandatory minimums, as they know that such actions have a direct impact on their electorate, making them seem tough on crime. However, mandatory minimum sentences have been shown to have little to no effect on crime, as criminals manifested very little hesitation as a result of fearing prison time. Those who oppose mandatory minimums have actually used this idea with the purpose of emphasizing that the system takes power away from judges and makes it impossible for them to provide suitable penalties.

Mandatory minimums obviously have an effect on crime when considering that they keep criminals for longer periods of time behind bars and that they can play an active role in preventing potential criminals from going through with their plans as a result of considering the serious risks they are faced with. Although the mandatory minimums system has functioned for several decades, the numerous problems it brought on led the public to express a particular interest in lobbying against it. Penalties are unevenly applied as a consequence of the system and this leads to seriously negative consequences.

In spite of the wide range of benefits associated with the idea of mandatory minimums, it appears that the system has a limited influence over recidivism. "Even as state prison populations have begun to decline slightly due to reforms in many states, the federal prison population has continued to grow, increasing by almost four percent in the last two years alone and by about a third in the past decade." (Saris 1) This stands as proof regarding how mandatory minimums do not have a significant influence on recidivism. If these penalties were to raise public awareness concerning the risks associated with committing a drug-related offense, the number of persons responsible for having performed such acts would have obviously been reduced.

The Judiciary Commission has shown that mandatory minimums have played an important role in increasing the number of individuals behind bars. Furthermore, the Commission has emphasized how reducing sentences and releasing offenders earlier than projected did not lead to these respective individuals proceeding to commit crimes. Offenders involved in crack cocaine-related cases are among the persons who experienced a sentence reduction and who did not display a propensity to continue dealing with the substance. When taking into account this concept, it would appear that crack cocaine dealers did not perceive sentence reduction as incentive to continue to deal the substance. Mandatory minimums are thus not effective in fighting recidivism in cases of persons who deal with crack cocaine (Saris 2).

Mandatory minimums were initially meant to target individuals who committed serious drug-related offenses. However, as time passed it became obvious that a significant part of the individuals arrested on account of drug-related activities were small time criminals.

The authorities have recently expressed significant interest in reducing mandatory minimums. While some expected the number of drug-related recidivists to rise, very little changed and it became clear that mandatory minimums were not as effective as previously thought.

The Commission studied the recidivism rate of offenders whose sentences were reduced pursuant to retroactive application of this guideline amendment and compared that rate with the recidivism rate of offenders who would have qualified for such a reduction, but were released after serving their full sentence before the 2007 changes went into effect.30 The analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. (Saris 7)

Criminals appear to be indifferent with regard to mandatory minimums and many are unhesitant about continuing to be involved in the drug business consequent to getting out of prison. Approximately 40% of former convicts in the U.S. are probable to return to prison within three years of their release. This shows the level to which mandatory minimums are effective (Viguerie).

To a certain degree, it is probable that mandatory minimums contribute to increasing the number of individuals who are willing to get involved in the drug industry more seriously. Offenders who are initially responsible for having committed a minor offense are significantly affected as a result of the time they spend behind bars. These people virtually lose their ability to properly re-integrate the social order. They are rarely able to get a job and when they do they are unlikely to keep it for a prolonged period of time. As a consequence, one can go as far as to say that mandatory minimums has a negative impact on recidivism instead of actually making it possible for people being incarcerated to gain a complex understanding of the difference between right and wrong (Viguerie).

Numerous individuals end up behind bars because they qualify within a set of ideas imposed by a mandatory minimum legislation. These people are incarcerated for exaggerated periods of time and the idea of deterrence is practically irrelevant when considering their situation. While the deterrence theory is one of the most important concepts in law enforcement as a whole, it seems pointless to consider that the only way to stop people from continuing to put across criminal behavior would be to incarcerate them for long periods of time. This process dehumanizes them and limits their understanding of social order (Merica & Perez).

Mandatory minimums are not effective when taking into account recidivism, as they fail to accomplish their mission of keeping individuals from going through with their criminal intentions concerning drug businesses. In contrast to the mandatory minimums system, drug courts have proved to be much more effective in dealing with the problem. The fact that they adopted different strategies and that they provided penalties that were actually in agreement with the criminal actions they were meant to address made it possible for offenders to be treated accordingly. Drug courts employed a positive approach at addressing drug-related offenses and concentrated on having the authorities penalize criminals on account of the gravity of their actions rather than depending on the nature of their illegalities.