I’ve talked briefly about the above sentencing laws previously, but I’d like to take a more in depth look now and really spell out why these laws are so harmful to the prison system and ultimately doing more harm than good.
First there is mandatory minimum sentencing, which was tried before and repealed due to poor efficiency. The Boggs act was established in the 1950s, which created two-to-five year minimum sentences for first time drug offenses, including simple possession (Gill, 2008). This later increased even more by the Daniel Act to no effect other than to lock up these offenders for even longer sentences. These were later repealed in 1970 (PBS). Congress had concluded that the mandatory minimums that were imposed had done nothing to curb drug use and furthermore the laws were unduly harsh. Unfortunately, this only lasted 16 years, before mandatory drug law sentencing would return under President Reagan.
These mandatory minimum sentencing laws are out of control. One need only look at the previous 100-1 disparity in crack and cocaine sentencing. Until very recently, a person found with 5 grams of crack would get the same mandatory jail time as someone found with 500 grams of powdered cocaine. This was recently changed to an 18-1 ratio, under a bill passed by the senate and championed by Dick Durbin, a Senator from
Truth-In-Sentencing laws are another problem. These laws often require inmates serve the vast majority of their prison time in prison, making them ineligible for parole or able to reduce their sentence with good behavior. Trachtenberg suggests that these laws have put prison wardens in a tough predicament, stating: “By abolishing parole and good-behavior credits, states have created nightmares for prison wardens, who no longer have carrots to offer prisoners in exchange for civilized conduct. In addition, prisoners who do behave well and cease to threaten the community cannot rejoin society, meaning taxpayers fund needless incarceration.” (2009). This seems to be a running theme with these types of laws, that they take away flexibility from the system and in doing so weaken the ability of administrators or judges to use discretion. This is not a positive step, rather a step backwards.
Think of all the bone headed zero tolerance policies that schools come up with, suspending kids for bringing aspirin to school because it is technically a drug. Intention is never considered with these types of laws; it is a blanket move in an attempt to deter the crime. However, when we take discretion out of the process, all we end up with is inequality, with offenders serving nearly all of their jail time who would otherwise be paroled. We are currently sending the message that we do not trust our judges to make decisions. That they are not fit to determine how much time someone should serve if they commit a certain offense.
Three Strikes laws are another similar problem to the previous two, with the idea being that after someone commits three felonies, they can be jailed for life. They do not need to be violent felonies to get locked up for their entire life. Take the case that went to the Supreme Court as an example: Ewing v.
Looking at all these different laws intended to increase the amount of time offenders serve in prison, we seem to be taking the approach that locking up anyone who commits a crime for longer is better for society. We are sending the message that when you commit a crime,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html
Trachtenberg, B.. (2009). INCARCERATION POLICY STRIKES OUT.
Abrams, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/durbin-cocaine-bill-passe_n_525625.html
No comments:
Post a Comment