http://minimumsentencing

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.