Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Corrections

Corrections: Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

A plethora of research has indicated that the time spent in jails is not favorable for prisoners since the recidivism rate would not be guaranteed to fall after their jail term is over. The mandatory minimum is the definite imprisonment time an offender spends in jail when a certain crime is proven against him. This stay is under great criticism by debaters, and they require reforms in mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

Several reasons contribute to the requests to repeal mandatory minimum sentencing laws. The first one is unfairness and inhumane prison treatment under the mandatory minimum sentence (Siegler, 2021). Racial segregation is one of the prominent causes that reform in this sentence mechanism is demanded recently as people of color are treated dehumanizingly. At the same time, protection is provided, even within the jail walls, to the Whites only (Siegler, 2021). America’s imprisonment system is now called the “human caging system,” where prosecutors name certain Articles of the Constitution during their court cases to prove only the people of color as guilty (Siegler, 2021). Taking the example of drug policies established in the US since the old days, it was addressed by the government as a public health approach. At the same time, discretion at the hands of judges was less seen in comparison with the racial disparities that had already been made when the first criminal offense was put on the shoulders of a Black person first handcuffed. For example, the unfairness of mandatory minimums could also be elucidated with the case of 28-year-old Mark Paul Weller. In 23015, the case was presented against Mark, who was found distributing meth (a drug) in his neighborhood (Cause of Action Institute, 2017). His prior unexpected life events were not considered who forced him to engage in such criminal activity. Rather his previous brief criminal history accounting for drugs and alcohol, taking gas money, driving a used car, and trading his sister for meth, etc., were on the record only (Cause of Action Institute, 2017). He was sentenced to 10 years with a heavy fine (Cause of Action Institute, 2017). It was reconsidered later what if rehabilitation was contemplated as an option to make him a better human being when he returned after ten years to society rather than keeping him restricted inside prison walls and doing nothing constructive. A mandatory minimum might not prove for him a mitigating factor and rather exaggerate his condition of remorse, neglect, and his mother’s addiction which could have been investigating the reasons for his criminal behavior (Cause of Action Institute, 2017). Thus, the mandatory minimum should be reviewed and repealed, for their reform is justified as it does more harm than good.

Long incarceration periods for mandatory minimum sentences also do not create much positivity for the offenders. They find it difficult to adjust to society and their families as they have gotten used to the jail environment (Siegler, 2021). The resources for them in the outer world are far lesser, aggravating the problem further; aggravation in terms of re-adjustments and greater likeliness of recidivism, increased crime rate and diminished public safety. Florida reported a 50% increment in crime after the enactment of mandatory minimums (Siegler, 2021). Societal and workplace disgrace get worse for them as only unemployment is forcefully imposed upon them (Dahl & Mogstad, 2020). Since they are offenders, no employer is ready to hire them as they perceive it might create an unbalance in their workplace environment and hurt their healthy work culture.

Compared to Norwegian rehabilitative prisons, which are expensive but have a much more affordable rehabilitation program than US incarceration, it has proven beneficial for the offenders when they return to society (Dahl & Mogstad, 2020). The employment programs and job training offered inside the jail have served as valuable to the prisoners as discernible spillover to their children is much lower (Dahl & Mogstad, 2020). The US incarceration system, which has five times longer mandatory minimums, has even higher rates of recidivism that further complicates the economic costs of curbing crimes in the future (Dahl & Mogstad, 2020). The expenditures on public safety programs are never minimized due to such outcomes of the traditional US mandatory minimum sentence. Prisoners’ social and emotional well-being is ignored when completing their term in jail, as their return is not planned with the help of “smarter sentencing.” The reform asks for post-release employment and its facilitation, so that the prisoners\\\\\\\' transition from jail to normal society is smoother.