Miriam

Smith

Mandatory Minimums Too Harsh

The need for prison and sentencing reform
Our prison system is broken. One out of every 100 Americans is in prison. The United
States has over 2.3 million people in jail, which is more than any other country in the world.
Over 2.7 million children in the United States have one or more parents in jail. (FAMM) The
United States prison system is overcrowded by at least 37%, according to the 2013 testimony of
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Charles E. Samuels. Part of the reason this is
happening is because of the number of people who are given sentences much longer and harsher
than are reasonable for their offense, mainly drug offenders, oftentimes because judges are
restricted by mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
Mandatory minimums are sentencing requirements for judges. They are set by Congress,
not the courts, which is an issue because Congress has no experience with sentencing people an
cant take into account the details of each individual situation. Mandatory minimums are, as the
name suggests, the minimum sentence a judge can give, even if they believe that it is too harsh,
which they almost are. Many of the people who are affected by mandatory minimums are people
who are nonviolent, drug offenders, with no past criminal record. There is no need to stick
people in prison who have no previous record or history of violence, especially because of how
overcrowded the system is already. Not only does the punishment not fit the crime, its not
helping the person get any help or treatment they need in order to not commit the crime again,
thus furthering the cycle. Almost half of all federal prisoners are serving drug sentences, and
over half of them have no previous record.
In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act passed through Congress which reduced the disparity
between sentencing of crack cocaine offenses and powder cocaine offenses from 100:1 to 18:1.

Miriam
Smith

This was a huge step in the right direction because it acknowledged that mandatory minimum
sentences are often much more extreme than necessary, as shown with the huge difference in
sentencing for essentially the same drug. People convicted of non-violent crack cocaine offenses
often served twice the amount of time than people who were convicted of violent powder
cocaine offenses. This action by President Obama and Congress was constitutional because the
act was passed by both Houses of Congress and was signed by the President, which is necessary
for it to go into effect.
Though the act was a good start on starting to change mandatory minimum sentencing,
they still affect many other people who end up serving more time than they would otherwise,
usually without the support necessary to actually change their lives and get help and
rehabilitation.
The Justice Department has also acknowledged the issue of mandatory minimums
and the issue of sentencing disparities. In a 2013 report, they stated For many non-violent, lowlevel offenses, prison may not be the most sensible method of punishment. But even for those
defendants who do require incarceration, it is important to ensure a sentence length
commensurate with the crime committed. (Smart on Crime-Justice Department) The
Department launched a full scale review of the criminal justice system in 2013, which main goals
were to give fairer punishments to all convicted people, while focusing on just punishments for
low level criminals. Another goal was to strengthen rehabilitation and reentry programs, which
are usually more effective than giving prison time to drug offenders. Though the report and
review was a good start, it still isnt enough to really change and improve the sentencing system
much. For real improvement, Congress will need to pass another law changing the sentencing
laws altogether.

Miriam
Smith

Part of the reason this study was done was because of the lack of resources such as
money and space which prisons need in order to continue running. Putting people in jail is
extremely expensive, about $29,000 per year in a federal prison, according to the United States
Federal Register. Taxpayers spend over $50 billion every year on running state prisons. This is a
huge amount of money, much of which could go to other programs that help people, such as
treatment or drug courts, instead of putting more people in the prison system.
For a first time offense for drug possession and distributing or with intent to distribute, a
mandatory minimum requirement is 10 years. The third offense is life in prison. These sentences
are extremely high and dont make sense for the crimes that were committed. People with 3 drug
abuse offenses need treatment, not life in prison. Because this is a mandatory minimum, the
judge has no way to get around it, even if they believe that it is too much time.
Drug Courts are one alternative to this situation. They are designed to help participants to
get treatment and they allow the court to work a little more closely and personally with the
offender. The person is expected to go through some addiction help as well as remain drug free
throughout the process. They regularly report to the court and are held accountable to the court
for their actions. Completion of the programs often allows people to have the offense removed
from their record or shortened or reduced. 75% of the program graduates are not arrested for at
least two years after their completion of the program. Drug courts also cost about $3,000$13,000 per person overall, opposed to the $29,000 per person per year in prison. However, there
are many states and local jurisdictions with drug courts but not federal drug court program. The
President should urge Congress to create drug courts and to change mandatory minimums to
include the possibility of drug court sentences..

Miriam
Smith

Mandatory minimums should be reduced more or gotten rid of entirely so that

offenders can get fairer sentences and help and rehabilitation. The President and Congress need
to get rid of mandatory minimums and implement more programs in order to help people in
prison and people who are convicted of drug crimes.
Works Cited
The Attorney Generals Smart on Crime Initiative. The United States Department of
Justice. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. <http://www.justice.gov/ag/attorney-generals-smart-crimeinitiative>.
Fair Sentencing Act. American Civil Liberties Union. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.
<https://www.aclu.org/fair-sentencing-act>.
FAMM-Families Against Mandatory Minimums. Families Against Mandatory
Minimums, n.d. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. <http://famm.org>.
Right on Crime.Web. 8 Mar. 2015. <http://rightoncrime.com>.
The Sentencing Project. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. <http://www.sentencingproject.org/>.
United States. Cong. House. Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
Agencies. Hearings. Testimony of Charles E. Samuels, Jr. Washington: GPO, n.d. Print.
U.S. Department of Justice. Prisoners in 2011. 2012. Print.
U.S. Department of Justice. Smart on Crime. 2013. Print.

Miriam
Smith

Miriam
Smith