Many Federal Judges have expressed their views on the minimum sentencing laws

Many federal judges have expressed their views on the

This preview shows page 3 - 4 out of 4 pages.

Many Federal Judges have expressed their views on the minimum sentencing laws how they serve no justice and even some prosecutors themselves do not agree with them. A good example would be the drug sentencing - if a person is charged with possession of 10 grams of LSD, 280 grams of crack cocaine or 50 grams of methamphetamine with one prior felony, they face 20 years to life. If the person has 2 prior felonies, no matter the time frame, the penalty is life without parole. This harms 5 million children who have or have had their parent in prison. This is also waste of human labor and human potential. The minimum sentencing laws are inflexible and prevent judicial preference. The offenders are prevented from pleading guilty because minimum sentencing guarantees a harsh punishment, that costs time and money by delaying court cases. Minimum sentencing should not be mandatory as it is unconstitutional, does not deter crime, crowds the prisons and is not cost effective.
Background image
MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCINGReferencesMandatory Minimums and Sentencing Reform. (n.d.). Retrieved fromMandatory minimum sentences are cruel and ineffective. Sessions wants them back.-sentences-are-cruel-and-ineffective-sessions-wants-them-back/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.901ac4f434a3Overcrowding and the Overuse of Imprisonment in the United States. (2015). Retrieved from
Background image

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture