This is my first foray into Great Debates (well, outside of a couple of failed attempts at posts), so I hope that my post here will not ruffle up TOO many feathers. Most of my post will concern this article from the Associated Press.
According to the article, the American Bar Association (ABA) has said, “Many get-tough approaches to crime don’t work and some, such as mandatory minimum sentences for small-time drug offenders, are unfair and should be abolished”.
I know a guy that is in jail now for possession with intent to sell of 1 ounce of marijuana. He was sentenced to 3 years in jail. He admitted in court that his drug use was affecting his life as a whole, and was willing to go into drug rehab program to get him clean. When my friend asked his lawyer about this, he laughed and said “No way your getting rehab. The best you can hope for is 1 year [in jail] and a fine.”
Is this a correct statement? What will the abolishment of MMS do to the United States? Would prisoners in jail currently get ‘grand fathered’ out of jail?
I’m all for dumping MMSs. There does not seem to be much opposition to it on this board. Sadly, Straight Dope is hardly representative of the population as a whole.
My only caveat would be to couple the elmination of MMSs for small time drug charges with continued stringent sentences to violent crimes like rape, murder, assault and armed robbery. Let’s separate the wheat from the chaff as it were.
Not IMHO. Those who support them tend to say they prevent hard core criminals from getting out on the street, and that the “small time” guys who get sentenced are actually hardened criminals who’ve played the system for years before finally getting caught. Never made sense to me, but that’s what I’ve read.
As you say in your OP, it is part of the “get tough on” concept of law enforcement, the theory being that people will know that they face jail time if caught, no getting off easy, so they won’t do it. Guess what? Doesn’t work.
Ironically enough, the same people who present capital punishment as a cost saving measure to life imprisonment are the same folk who are housing minor drug violators in prison for years on end, clogging up the system entirely, leading to overcrowding and, arguably, a spread in crime.
The point of the war on drugs is to prevent drug-related crime, not to be nasty when it occurs. I understand that the two often come hand in hand, but there always has to be a focus on the former, and the latter only as a means of achieving the former. Which brings me to my first question: Is there any logical reason that knowing your minimum jail sentence would deter your using drugs?
As far as I can tell, you’re either an addict (in which case all threat of capture and punishment takes a backseat to your physical need), or you’re reckless (in which case threats don’t affect your judgment), or you’re a recreational drug user who, knowing there’s a mandatory minimum sentence, is convinced you won’t be caught. I suppose the only use mandatory minimums have is to possibly deter people who are considering becoming recreational drug users.
All this does not really cover those whose judgment can often be swayed by other factors, namely juvenile offenders. Do MMS apply to minors being tried in juvenile court? Is there discretion allowed for minors being tried as adults?
Also, do mandatory minimums supercede the possibility of court ordered treatment?
I’d say no. I think the only reason they remain on the books is because the politicians fear accusations of being “soft on crime”. We seem to be locked into a situation where it’s possible to pass stricter laws and mandate harsher penalties, but impossible to modify strict laws or reduce penalties.
I remember seeing or reading about a case where a young lady was asked to give a friend, a dealer, a ride somewhere. Her claim was that she didn’t know that the guy was picking up a large quantity of drugs. She had no prior record and was not a part of the DEA’s investigation.
DEA agents followed them, busted her, her friend, and the supplier. The dealer and supplier turned state’s evidence on some drug kingpin and pled down to probation or a short sentence. She, because she had nothing to offer to the DA, was sentenced to many years in prison.
For this reason and this reason alone, I feel the minimum sentencing is counterproductive and should be abolished. What is the point of having a judge preside over a trial if he or she cannot judge?
It seems that just about everyone agrees that MMS’ should be modified, but in what way? Unless your legalizing drugs (which this thread is not about), you have to replace MMS’ with something.
Obviously you would have some sort of treatment option for judges and juries to hear, but what else?
Ideally, most minor offenders (casual potheads) would get therapy and rehab or some such, at least their first time. The judge and jury should be deciding sentences, not mandatories.
Oh, definitely. I support the ABA’s idea of removing mandatory minimum sentencing. Getting tossed for two games just for clearing the benches and starting a fight is outrageous.
Ending MMS isn’t about saying that judges can’t send people to jail, but that they don’t have to send them to jail. It means that they can look at the circumstances, look at the criminal, and then apply an appropriate sentence based on the crime. For some, that will still be inprisonment. But for some, it probably should be treatment, rehab, probation, etc. But the person who has actually heard the facts of the case should have more discretion than is currently alllowed in determining the sentence.
I don’t have anything to add to the dabate, but there is a very good essay on the subject of mandatory minumum sentances and the war on drugs in the first section of Reefer Maddness.
Written by the author of Fast Food Nation, its another good read.
