Mandatory Minimums: A National Injustice

Authors Avatar
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.
Join now!


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