Issue 505 Mandatory Minimums and Judges January 14, 2015

Mandatory minimums like plea bargaining has its problems.  With mandatory minimums we have people who are declared guilty in a jury trial forced to serve out a sentence of say a set 30 years even if the other facts in evidence would be cause to have the guilty person to have a much reduced sentence of say five years.  Let us discuss.

Mandatory Minimums:  As I said in the opening, Mandatory minimums mean that a petty theft charge could bring a 30 year sentence, the same kind of sentence an individual could get for grand larceny.  Obviously this is unfair.  Another example is that a drug dealer, and a drug addict caught with their personal stash would be given the same criminal sentence of 25 years in jail.  Obviously their crimes are not equal, but this is what mandatory minimums unfortunately do.

Solutions:  Well, many judges are calling for the mandatory minimums to be scrapped altogether. Some think this a good idea because it allows maximum flexibility when it comes to judges deciding sentences for a convicted individual.  It allows for judges to take into account all factors in a case to the point that an individual could be remanded to a rehab facility for six months as opposed to a jail cell for five plus years.  However, this does risk people being under sentenced for a crime, or even being let go for a crime despite being guilty (case in point is the judge who let the Muslim husband who raped his wife go without penalty because his "religion" allowed it).  Also, mandatory minimums support plea bargaining by making it easier for prosecutors to convince suspects to take a lighter sentence.  On top of this, mandatory minimums also reduce costs because it prevents lengthy sentencing trials after the guilt of the individual has been determined.  Taking all this into account, if mandatory minimums was to be removed from our system, then strict conditions on punishments or even newer updated penalties that allow for flexibility in sentencing will have to be implemented.

Conclusion:  I do not favor mandatory minimums for most crimes.  In fact, for a majority of crimes, a televised public trial where the defendant is humiliated (or exonerated) becomes the main source of punishment.  Then if the defendant is guilty (crimes like petty theft to grand larceny) the individuals become forced to pay back all the money they stole (no jail time).  People who are drug addicts would go to therapy and other programs to aid them in resisting their addiction and the economic and social consequences associated with it.  Rapists and child molesters on the other hand is another story.  I want penal colonies where they stay for life and that they can volunteer for medical experiments to receive extra "privileges".  Murder though is entirely different and thus needs maximum flexibility with respect to sentencing (the nuance in these cases is a little beyond me and thus why I have this opinion).  But I think you my readers get my view and the issues surrounding the tool known as mandatory minimums in criminal sentencing.  Hope you enjoyed the read.