Mandatory Minimums: A National Injustice
Brittany Kuzman
Sister Marie Hubert Kealy
Composition II
22 April 2005
Mandatory Minimums: A National Injustice
Mandatory minimum drug sentencing is legislation passed by Congress in 1986 to create harsher punishments for drug offenders. These laws were created at a time when drug use was beginning to rise dramatically. This type of sentencing was meant to impose harsh, excessive sentences on any type of drug offense, despite other circumstances. While these laws seem good in theory, they were not well thought out. The creators and supporters did not consider the negative consequences of these strict laws. The injustices of federal mandatory minimum sentences have been present for years in the United States justice system. These laws are costly, unjust and excessive in our society.
First, the most obvious effect of mandatory minimums is what it costs our nation financially. The sentences of drug offenders are now extremely long, and keeping large numbers of people in jail for long amounts of time is very costly. The U.S. taxpayers are the ones suffering because they are the ones that are forced to pay for these increasing costs.
The cost of keeping just one person in prison is incredible. The cost of imprisoning just one person is on average 23,000 dollars per year. It is less expensive to put someone through college for four years than it is to incarcerate someone for four years. The amount of U.S. tax dollars going towards prison costs is growing faster than all other federal funding. Everyday 4.14 million dollars of U.S. taxpayer money goes towards federal prisons and 1.51 billion dollars annually (Cruel). These costs are continually and dramatically increasing. From 1986, when mandatory minimums were started, to 1997 the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget increased by over 1350%, from 220 million dollars to 3.19 billion dollars (Drug). The population in prisons has radically increased. From 1980 to 1999 the prison population has tripled. As Eric Schlosser notes, "California alone holds more inmates in its jails and prisons than do France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Singapore, and the Netherlands combined," (qtd in Easterbrook 57). This, along with the excessive prison terms, has contributed to the rise in the Federal Prison budget.
Mandatory minimums are the most costly and least effective way to cut down on the use of drugs (Greider 12). While mandatory sentencing may seem like the best way at first, in the long run money would be better spent on standard sentencing and treatment programs. Mandatory minimums are more expensive, predominately because of the high costs of incarceration (Study). Rand's Drug Policy Research Center performed a study on the best cost effective way to reduce drug use. Their results showed that every 1 million dollars spent on mandatory minimum sentencing helps to reduce cocaine consumption by 13 kilograms. When 1 million dollars was spent on the standard sentencing it would reduce cocaine consumption by 27 kilograms. If 1 million dollars were spent on treatment for heavy drug users it would help to reduce cocaine consumption by 100 kilograms (Caulkins). So it is obvious that mandatory minimums are a waste of money.
These mandatory minimums terribly affect thousands of families. While it is fairly simple to figure out what they are costing this nation in dollars, the most detrimental costs of the sentencing are those that cannot be measured, the lives of humans. So many lives are ruined because of the excessive and unreasonable prison terms prescribed to them. Not only are the prisoners lives ruined, but also the lives of their families. Mothers and fathers are often hauled away to jail leaving behind children and other family members to grieve the loss of their family. Mandatory minimum sentencing may ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
These mandatory minimums terribly affect thousands of families. While it is fairly simple to figure out what they are costing this nation in dollars, the most detrimental costs of the sentencing are those that cannot be measured, the lives of humans. So many lives are ruined because of the excessive and unreasonable prison terms prescribed to them. Not only are the prisoners lives ruined, but also the lives of their families. Mothers and fathers are often hauled away to jail leaving behind children and other family members to grieve the loss of their family. Mandatory minimum sentencing may seem like a good way to keep people safe, and to protect them from drugs, but the truth is that they more often tear families apart. The innocent children are the ones that seem to be the worst affected in this situation.
The children of the prisoners are caught in the middle. The loss of a parent to prison resembles the death of a parent. A parent, who was once always there, is now absent in the child's life and, the child will grieve their parent's absence. Often, these children will have problems with their losses and it will affect them in numerous, negative ways. They may develop problems in school, with their social conduct and in other aspects of their lives. Children of prisoners are five times more likely to end up in prison eventually than other children (Cruel). Children are also often traumatized by seeing their parents getting arrested. They may witness their houses being broke into by police and their parents and property being seized by police. These disturbing scenes are occurring more and more often, demonstrating, once again, that the children are the victims.
The number of families being affected by this cruel sentencing is growing. The number of parents becoming imprisoned is rapidly increasing. In 1978 the number of parents imprisoned was 21,000. By 1990, just 12 years later, it had already increased to 1 million. This means that over 1.5 million children currently have a parent in jail (Cruel). A fair amount of these parents are mothers, and the number is continually growing. Since the start of mandatory minimums the number of women in prison has tripled. Over 80% of women in prison are mothers, and 70% of these women are single parents (Cruel). These statistics are quite astonishing, especially when considering all the children and families affected.
Even though these facts and statistics are very shocking it is still difficult to really understand these laws' detrimental effects. The only way to truly comprehend the terrible effects is to know how it affects real people in real life situations. One example is Bill Stonner, a real estate developer in New York. He is currently serving ten years in prison, a mandatory minimum sentence for growing marijuana. His wife, Susan, knows that what her husband did was wrong and punishable, but the sentencing was not fair. She states, "But 10 years is a little excessive. It was his first offense. He had no prior records...now we have two children that miss their father terribly (Marks 1). This is just one of many examples of a family drastically affected by the extreme sentencing brought about by mandatory minimums. While Bill Stonner was in the wrong for growing drugs, he did not deserve ten years away from his family, and they are the real victims.
These strict laws and system make sentencing dreadfully unjust. Mandatory minimums are practically set in stone, they do not allow the judges to use open judgment, which results in unjust punishment. Judges are only allowed to look at the weight and type of drug involved to determine sentencing. They are not allowed to consider any other circumstances. This practically "straightjackets" the judge, forcing judges to hand out ridiculous and unjust sentences (Cruel). Before mandatory minimums, judges were able to assign the sentence that they felt was appropriate (Risley). They were able to look at the surrounding circumstances and make a fair decision. Now judges do not have the sentencing discretion, the prosecutors do. Prosecutors are now able to make the important decisions regarding what charges will be brought about against the defendant. This alteration in the system has brought about less fairness than ever before (Drug). The control of sentencing has just been passed to prosecutors, instead of judges. This does make anything fairer, just more confusing.
Mandatory minimums are obviously biased against the working class, and favor those with wealth and prestige. It is common to see the working class receive long sentences for drug possession, but witnessing a someone with money or status receive the same type of sentencing is rare. The wealthy can easily use their money and power to keep themselves out of jail. Author and expert Gregg Easterbrook states, "The threat of prison has become to the 90's what the draft was during most of the Vietnam years- a burden for the typical person from which the elite are nearly exempt" (2). If this system of sentencing were fair there would be a similar amount of wealthy people incarcerated as there is the working class, which is just not the case.
It is obvious to see that these regulations are not doing what they are meant to be doing. They are supposed to be punishing the high-level drug dealers to keep drug use down, but what is actually happening is that the low-level, less threatening offenders are the only ones doing hard time. The high-level dealers are receiving reduced sentencing because of their vast knowledge of the drug world and can give up other dealers to the police. While the low-level subordinates are receiving the longer sentences because they do not have the knowledge of the same information. The high-level dealers also rarely possess their drugs, which are what they hire the others for. This is when mandatory minimums are practically useless, because it difficult to sentence the drug dealers when they are not possessing (Caulkins). A prime example of a case like this occurred in 1991 with Anthony Bringham. He was acting as a "look-out" for a drug buy one day. He was caught and arrested and sentenced to a minimum of ten years. While the major drug traffickers that he was working for only received community service because they could give information on others, while Bringham knew nothing (Easterbrook 3). This is not the kind of fair and just sentencing that was needed in this, and many other, cases.
By looking even further into these laws, it becomes obvious that they are also racist. First of all, one of the laws present in today's society is known as the "100 to one" clause. This law treats crack cocaine 100 times harsher then powder cocaine. Five grams of crack cocaine, a fairly small amount, is the amount necessary for a five year sentence. While, five hundred grams of powder cocaine equals the same sentencing (Easterbrook 4). This is unjustifiable because crack cocaine no worse, and not much different then powder cocaine. This is a racist law because most of the crack cocaine users are black, while whites tend to use powder cocaine. There are also more blacks in jail because of drug offenses than there are whites. Blacks and Hispanics receive 73% of drug convictions, and African Americans receive the longest sentences (Greider 6).
The majority of sentences for drug convictions in recent years have been very excessive, to say the least. Prisons are full of many of non-violent, first time offenders in for a long time on a minor drug conviction. The extremely long prison terms are to blame for the rise in prison costs and for so many people currently in jail. The incarceration rate in the United States is 1 in every 143 persons, a tremendous and increasing number (Williams). In certain places parole for drug offenders is being eliminated. This makes it difficult for those serving long terms and does not give them a second chance, even if they have improved and have been rehabilitated (Easterbrook 5).
When compared to sentencing for other crimes, mandatory minimums just seem ridiculous. The length of sentencing for a first time drug offender far succeeds those sentenced for more heinous crimes, like firearms, sexual abuse, assault, manslaughter, burglary and auto theft (Cruel). Under New York law, a person caught selling two ounces of cocaine will receive a 15 year minimum sentence, while a person convicted of rape will only serve a 5 year sentence (Easterbrook 4). Frank Bowman, a law professor at Gonzaga University, states "Long , mandatory sentences for significant drug traffickers are one thing, but rules like five years for possession of five grams of crack cocaine are morally abhorrent" (Easterbrook 4).
Our nation truly needs to look over these strict laws and see what it is really doing to our society. Our government needs to look at the thousands of people affected by them. There are so many that have been prosecuted unfairly and do not deserve the harsh punishments that they have received. Those that are imposing these laws should hear the stories of those that they have imprisoned and see them as who they are, people, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and not just another statistic.
Works Cited
Caulkins, Jonathan P., et al. "Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences: Throwing Away the
Key or the Taxpayers' Money?" 1997. RAND. 21 Feb. 2005.
<http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR827/>.
"Cruel and Unusual Punishment." HDRW: Human Rights and the Drug War.
21 Feb. 2005.< http://www.hr95.org/index.html>.
"Drug War Facts: Mandatory Minimums." 27 Jan. 2005. Common Sense for Drug
Policy. 21 Feb. 2005. <http://drugwarfacts.org/madator.htm>.
Easterbrook, Gregg. "Run On Sentencing." New Republic 220.17 (1999): 57.
Greider, William. "Mandatory Minimums: A National Disgrace." Rolling Stone 784
(1998): 42.
Marks, Alexandra. "Cost Concerns Drive States to Ease Tough Sentences for Some Drug
Offenders." Christian Science Monitor 89.113 (1997): 1.
Risley, David. "Mandatory Minimum Sentences: An Overview." May 2000. Drug Watch
International. 27 Feb. 2005.
<http://drugwatch.org/Mandatory%20Minimum%20Sentences.htm>.
"Study: Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentencing Don't Work." 12 May 1997. CNN.
14 March 2005. <www.cn.com/US/9705/12/mandatory,sentencing/>.
Williams, Pete. "Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: End Minimum Sentences." 9 Aug. 2003.
MSNBC.com. 27 Feb. 2003. <http://november.org/dissentingopinions/Kennedy2.html>.
Kuzman 1