Mandatory Minimums a Drop Crime Additional Problems;

¶ … mandatory minimums a drop crime additional problems; based information readings personal research, attributed reduction crime? Do agree findings mandatory minimums ineffectual? How -strike laws? Page 2 Research locate a news article op-ed addresses issue relevant unit.

Society has seen an increasing number of states implementing mandatory minimums as a means to deter criminals. Mandatory minimums involve judges having to impose sentences that are in accordance with a particular law and thus provide criminals with no less than a specific amount of time behind bars as long as the criminal meets certain criteria. Mandatory minimums have been designed to guarantee that the country achieves a series of goals with regard to common crimes such as drug trafficking. Even with the fact that they appear to be effective in theory, information shows that mandatory minimums are not actually playing a positive role in assisting the community.

One of the reasons why crime levels dropped as a result of mandatory minimums involves higher drug prices. Dealers increase their prices as a result of facing harsher penalties and thus have less buyers.

In the contemporary society many drug dealers being arrested simply result in other dealers taking their place in the world of crime. The fact that the authorities devise more effective means to deal with dealers only means that particular deals are provided with harsh punishments. Most of them simply manage to avoid being caught as a result of perfecting their strategies. It is not necessarily that the authorities need to stop being tough on crime, as they generally need to concentrate on catching more dangerous criminals instead of pursuing small-time criminals and providing them with harsh sentences (Horwitz).

There is much controversy regarding the three-strike law, as while it is meant to keep dangerous criminals in prisons it also incarcerates smaller criminals for long periods of time on account of their actions. The fact that there are life sentences in the case of many individuals responsible for having committed non-violent crimes that were not serious stands as proof with regard to the law's ineffectiveness.

2. Capital punishment is a very divisive issue, and, considering that most people believe that it deters crime, it is especially intriguing to take into account its exact effects. Many tend to believe that capital punishment in association with the idea of deterrence need to be recognized for the outdated nature of information that exists concerning this connection. The NY Times article "The Myth of Deterrence" emphasizes the relationship between capital punishment and deterrence but also brings on information showing that there is no actual proof to back up the claim that the death penalty prevents serious crimes from taking place.

The authorities have issued numerous death penalties during recent decades, but this did not reflect on the number of serious crimes. The fact that the authorities know nothing about how individuals about to commit a serious crime understand the risks they are facing means that it would be impossible to say that the capital punishment is an essential factor influencing criminals from taking on harsher attitudes.