Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Each year in America many people received prison sentences for crimes that pose little if any danger or harm to our society. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in the American Justice System has long been argued by both Lawmakers and the public. We will go over some of the history of mandatory minimum sentences as well as the many pros and cons to these types of sentences. Some examples of pros and cons are the overall effect on public safety, the effect on the offenders, the cost to taxpayers, the lack of discretion for Judge’s, and whether the law should be repealed.
The history of Mandatory Minimum sentencing laws date back to the founding of this country, the idea of swift and certain punishment has always been popular among the public and lawmakers. However, throughout time it has never accomplished its intended goal to eliminate a particular crime. Today’s mandatory minimum sentencing laws require automatic prison terms for those who are convicted of certain federal and state crimes. Some acts we will go over are mostly those established throughout the 1980’s. During this time several acts came into effect and are known as the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, and the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Today many argue that these laws to harsh and need to be revised.
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act came into effect in 1984. As stated by O’Bryant & Seghetti “This Act overhauled the federal sentencing system and revised bail and forfeiture procedures along with other federal practices” (O’Bryant & Seghetti, 2002). According to NCJRS “The bill's main sections cover bail, sentencing reform, forfeiture of assets, the insanity defense, penalties for drug law offenses, federal grants and other assistance in the area of criminal justice, and transfers of surplus Federal property to States or localities. Additional sections focus on labor racketeering, reporting regarding currency and foreign transactions, prosecution of certain