Mandatory Sentencing Pros And Cons

Sometimes mandatory minimum sentences are the consequences of good intentions, but good intentions do not always make beneficial policy in society. One of the famous senior associate justice of the supreme court of the United have said the truth of federal mandatory sentencing, in which I used this quotation to relate to the topic that I’m about to discuss.
“The Federal sentencing guidelines should be revised downward. By contrast to the guidelines, I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.” By Anthony Kennedy A mandatory sentencing is a court decision that takes place where a judge decides limited by law. Based on the
According to Trotter Andrew in the article, he discusses how sometimes mandatory sentencing can be indefensible or lead to oppressive violation when a refugee smugglers into the country or operate human traffic. However, in 1937, Gordon Picklum who helped nine Chinese non-citizens to be transported to America in a hidden boat was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment for his violation. What caught Andrew’s attention was, since 1999 the penalty for those who control human trafficking are likely to have the hard time facing the mandatory minimum sentencing, in which of five years to be served at least. What Andrew states that when a person commits a crime like this he or she should have the knowledge of the penalties instructed by law in order to be testified in the case. He also argues human trafficking can be considered to be many things, and yet claims that his client Gordon Picklum is innocent because this law is just a scheme. Andrew mentions that “the behaviour of high-level organisers in people smuggling, generally motivated by profit” (Andrew, 2012). To demonstrate that there are different types of human trafficking such as sex trafficking, labour trafficking in which these both can be considered rightly
Offenders who convict of three violent crimes be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Writer Stolzenberg Lisa in this article gives us the perspective of California’s three-strike law adopted in 1994. Compared to other states, with their own legislation, California has the toughest mandated sentencing because of the higher percentage of violent offenders. The reason why California uses this form is to lengthen sentences and deter crime, especially crime committed by repeated offenders. On the other hand, Lisa argues that policy of transmitting more people to prison and increasing sentences has been a complete deficiency in reducing felonies “they estimated that a fully implemented three-strikes law would reduce serious felonies between 22% and 34% and that about one-third of this reduction would be for violent crimes such as murder, rape, or aggravated assault.” (Lisa,1997) This show the measures have been tried in the past decade, but they have had no observable fallout on crime because more prisons have never been an effective solution to the crime problem. Due to more crime rates, the state reformed its constitutional law in which those who seriously commit a crime or felony should be mandated under the three-strike law. In the case of robbery, the judge gives any offender to serve in jail for the small amount of time.