Determinate and Minimum Mandatory Sentencing, Essay Example

Introduction

Criminal activities and their associated punishments form an integral part of public policy whereby state legislature plays a pivotal role in their definition. The judicial system has the responsibility of ensuring the implementation of criminal law as guided by the law. A proof of guilty in an individual who has been arrested leads to punishment by the judicially on the basis of case-by-case guidelines as defined by statutory parameters which are explicit in the legislature. Determinate, indeterminate and mandatory sentencings are common in judicial systems

Determinate Sentence

This category involves sentencing a convict to a fixed minimum time period as guided by a statute. The magistrate applies sentencing guidelines in consideration of individual circumstances at the time of sentence determination. In contrast, statutes behind mandatory sentences have limited discretion for the sentence terms to the judges. Determinate sentence is definite and cannot be reviewed by any agency including a parole board. Majority of the measures of determinate sentence adopted in 1980s to 1990s were intended to curb use of drugs (Sklansky, 2005). The requirements for determinate sentence are harsh, non negotiable as well as strict sentences for being in possession of narcotics. The consequences behind the stringent laws were inconsistent as well as unintended results. In some cases for example, repeat offenders may get lighter sentences if they provide police with vital information to compensate the testimony they provide as compared to first time convicts who are less violent.

Mandatory minimum sentence

In mandatory minimum sentence on the other hand, prisoners are subjected to jail terms for specified time length due to federal as well as state crimes.  The initial establishment of mandatory minimum sentences was 1969 followed by later expansions in1980s to 1990s in Connecticut. Mandatory minimum sentences involve imposition of definite imprisonment amount as guided by the crime that an offender commits and the criminal history of the defendant (Simons, 2002).  In mandatory minimum sentences, the judge is obliged to impose a definite and fixed sentence on the basis of statutes and no mitigating factors of the offender are put in to consideration. Mandatory minimum involves decisions of the court with limited judicial discretion as guided by the law. A characteristic feature of this conviction is a set minimum time duration in a prison with slight variations among different countries.

Majority of the mandatory minimum sentences targets drug offences although other crimes such as economic offences, pornography and possession of guns fall in this category. Due to their inflexible nature, they are quick fix solution to crime although they tend to undermine justice as a result that judges are hindered from fitting the sentence to offenders and circumstances surrounding their offences. Consequently, mandatory minimum sentences are the cause of soaring populations in prisons that is ultimately consequential to overcrowding in prisons, escalating taxpayers’ cost and resources diversion from the law enforcement.

Mandatory minimum sentences are believed to reduce the rates of crimes and guarantees for sentencing uniformity and therefore can be considered to be more effective. One time or repeated offenders are encouraged to quit their criminal behaviors because the sentence they expect is certainly clear.

References

Simons, M. A. (2002). Departing Ways: Uniformity, Disparity and Cooperation in Federal Drug Sentences 47, Vill. L. Rev., p. 921.

Sklansky, D. A., (2005). “Cocaine, Race, and Equal Protection.” Stanford Law Review 47: 1283.