Mandatory
Minimum Sentencing
During the 1970s and 1980s, the criminal justice system
began to migrate away from rehabilitative philosophies and moved towards more
punitive policies in an effort not to appear soft on crime. Presidential candidates even ran on platforms
that promised to crack down on crime to capitalize on the fears of society in
regard to crime and criminals. The
increase in crime led to very politically charged punitive policies that focused
on the War on Drugs and violent felony offenders. These
policies have been criticized as unethical because the discretion given to
prosecutors to specify to whom or how (in reference to felonies or
misdemeanors) to apply the three-strikes rule and the biases and disparity in sentencing;
they not to mention that they have been judged as ineffective.
In 1993, habitual felony laws (three-strikes
legislation), were enacted in Washington State requiring a life sentence with
no chance of parole for “offenders convicted for a third time of specific
violent or serious felonies” (Banks, 2013, pg. 196). California ensued without support from their
executive or legislative bodies with what was characterized as “an extreme
example of a populist preemption of criminal justice policy-making” (Banks,
2013, pg. 196). The three-strikes
legislation in California can be applied to any
felony. Spurred on by very public cases
of murders, rapes and other violent crimes committed by recently released
career felons, three-strikes ballot proposals became the standards for the
federal government and many other states to relieve public fear and concern
over the increase in crime rates. The
goal was to make the deterrent so severe that the habitual offender would
consider the punishment and consider the cost of further offense. Unfortunately, most criminals do not keep
abreast of changes in criminal policies; they are informed of these changes at
sentencing, much too late reconsider their actions. And even if they are aware of the
consequences, their circumstances render them unable to rationally connect the reality
of the consequences to the crime.
The primary complaint was that “three strikes laws fail
to meet standards of equal justice for like kinds of criminal wrongdoing,
because these laws omit white-collar crimes and demonstrate ‘the strong and
ugly stains of race, class, and ethnic bias that have produced these laws”
(Banks, 2013, pg. 197). In other words,
the “war on drugs” gave legal justification and opportunity for the continuance
of a racist criminal justice system to apply laws with disparity under the mask
of protecting society (of the haves),
at the expense of the have nots. Anyone who looks with honesty at the criminal
justice system today should see that it still has residual racism that has continued
to be tolerated and not been properly addressed. There still must be a fair way to ensure
punishment is the same for all. A clear
example is how the three-strikes legislation is applied to drug offenders (dealers
and users) who deal powder cocaine as opposed to those who deal in crack
cocaine. A large portion of drug related
crime takes place in poverty stricken inner city and urban areas. If crack dealers relocated their trade to
gated communities, prep schools, Wall Street or suburbia, would the police
refocus the war on drugs to these areas?
It seems reasonable that police would focus their resources in areas
where crime has been reported to be ongoing.
However, the disparity and bias shows up in the charges and sentencing
stage.
Another criticism of the three-strikes legislation is
that it has overburdened court and prison systems with cases and sentences that
incur staggering financial obligations and require the building and maintenance
of additional jails and prisons. The main
issue was that is unfairly targeted certain groups in society. Yes, everyone wants to feel safe in their
homes, neighborhoods and schools; perhaps that is why it has become acceptable
to close our eyes to the inequity that still exists. God forbid someone should imply that we want
crime to go unpunished; so there must be consequences. But should it be administered based on where
you live, economic status, or your ethnicity.
“Black men are imprisoned at the highest rate, 6.5 times higher than
White men, and 2.5 times higher than Hispanic men…Black women imprisonment rate
is nearly double the imprisonment rates of Hispanic women and three times the
rate if White women” (Samaha, 2011, pg. 21).
If it does not apply to every individual equally, it may be accepted as
legal, but it cannot be considered as ethical.
References
Banks,
C. (2013). Criminal justice ethics. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, INC.
Samaha,
J. (2011). Criminal law. (10th ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning.
