Should Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws Be Repealed?
by Silvio Carrillo
Tuesday, June 13, 2000The movement to establish mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses began in the early 1950s and gained momentum in the 1970s. During this time, however, sentencing was mainly at the discretion of individual judges who could consider facts regarding the circumstances of an offense and a defendant's past record in their final rulings. Attempting to halt the growing drug trade and address concerns that judicial sentences were biased by rendering disproportionately longer prison terms to blacks and minority groups, mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines were enacted by several states in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
As the crack cocaine epidemic exploded in the mid-1980s and the rate of drug-related homicides rocketed, Congress looked to mandatory sentencing for drug-related crimes as a law enforcement weapon. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 established federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. Under the law, judges are required to impose minimum sentences on offenders based on the type and quantity of drug involved. Before the 1986 law, drug offenders received an average prison sentence of 22 months. After the law was enacted, the average sentence jumped to 66 months.
As the number of inmates incarcerated for drug-related crimes has increased along with the lengths of prison terms since the passage of the 1986 law, the general prison population has swelled and resulted in overcrowded facilities. This in turn has driven-up costs to the prison system as additional guards and new prisons are required to effectively manage the current inmate population. Concerns that mandatory minimum sentencing unfairly treats blacks and minorities have also arisen. Legislation was submitted to Congress in 1999 that would restructure federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines to concentrate more on serious and violent drug-related crimes, and the House subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources heard testimony on the issue this past May.
On One Hand...
Mandatory sentencing is an effective deterrent to the use and distribution of drugs and protects against possible disparities in sentencing. The longer prison terms make criminals think twice about breaking the law. And those who do, are locked away for longer periods of time, keeping them off of the street.
The law also aids prosecutors and police, who use the threat of lengthy prison terms to persuade low-level dealers to testify against drug kingpins.
On the Other Hand...
There is no evidence that tougher sentences deter drug crimes. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1987 and 1997, the number of drug violations increased 48.2 percent.
The prison population is exploding at an alarming rate because of the longer sentences, forcing government spending on prisons budgets to skyrocket.
The people who are crowding the jails are by-and-large non-violent offenders. Meanwhile, criminals who commit more serious crimes often spend less time in jail. This sentencing disparity even extends to the mandatory minimum law itself. For example, anyone found with five grams of "crack" cocaine receives a minimum sentence of five years. This is the same as anyone selling 500 grams of powder cocaine.
- The cost to U.S. taxpayers for incarcerating one person for one month in federal prison is $1,910.
- Drug offenders accounted for 44 percent of the increase in the state prison population from 1986 to 1991.
- In 1997, 57 percent of state prisoners said they used drugs in the month prior to their arrest, up from 50 percent in 1991.
- The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that it costs nearly $9 billion a year to keep drug law offenders behind bars.
- The Federal Bureau of Prisons budget was $3.9 billion in in 1997, up from increase from $220 million in 1986.
National Drug Strategy Network, U.S. Sentencing Commission, National Journal, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Links
Addictive Properties of Drugs PDF
