Should the Obama Administration eliminate/regulate drug mandatory minimums?
The importance of mandatory minimums in the US right now has a direct effect on Americans. This is important because prisons are filling with people and becoming overcrowded. Americans’ taxes dollars are being used to build more federal prisons, rather than spending those funds on prevention, drug education, and rehab. Mandatory minimums are also creating a racial disparity in the prisons. Over fifty percent of inmates are black. The discretion of a case is taken away from the judge, so nonviolent, first-time, low level offenders are crowding the halls of America’s prisons. Who is actually paying the price?
History and Background:
· Mandatory minimums were put into place in the 80s under the Reagan Administration during the War on Drugs and tough-on-crime policy. Now, twenty-five years later, the War on Drugs has failed and more people are sentenced to prison for a drug addiction.
· Proposition 184, also known as the three strikes and you’re out law, was passed on November 9, 1994. Under this new legislation repeat offenders, upon committing their third felony offense, are sentenced to a mandatory twenty-five years to life in prison.
· The exact application of the three strikes law varies considerably from state o state. Some states require all three felony convictions to be violent crimes in order for the mandatory sentence to be pronounced, while others—most notably California—mandate the enhanced sentence for any third felony conviction so long as the first two felonies were deemed to be either “violent” or “serious” or both.
· In 1956 mandatory minimums were used for most notably drugs, but also firearms. In 1970, Congress drew back from the comprehensive application of mandatory minimum provisions of drug crimes. Finding that increases in sentence length had not shown the expected overall reduction in drug law violations, Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 that repealed virtually all mandatory penalties for drug violations.
Racial Disparity:
· Because crack cocaine is associated with black people, the 100-to-1 rule creates major racial disparity in federal prisons. The 100-to-1 rule is a legacy of the 80s when crack was erroneously believed to be much more dangerous than the chemically identical powder cocaine. Congress made crack the only drug that carries a mandatory minimum sentence for possession—even for first time offenders.
· The Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986 established a 100-to-1 crack cocaine to powder cocaine ratio resulting in crack offenders receiving decades in prison while powder cocaine offenders receive months, or at most, several years in prison for offenses. The 100-to-1 disparity results in many blacks being sentenced to prison for five years with the weight of five grams of crack while many whites are being sentenced to prison for five years with the weight of five hundred grams of coke.
Cost:
· It costs $23,000 annually to incarcerate an addict, but $1,800 for outpatient and #6,800 for residential drug treatment. Treatment of heavy users is eight to nine times more effective than long sentences.
· Billions of Americans’ tax dollars are being funded to build new prisons due to overcrowding.
· Because costs are so high, many lawmakers find themselves cutting rehab funds to support prisons, only adding to the problem.
Discretion:
· In reality, the mandatory minimums are weight driven. It is the weight of the drugs involved that controls with no regard for whether the defendant is a major dealer or serious trafficker. Judges are in awkward position as they cannot exercise discretion and prosecutors are obviously biased.
· Currently, judges are limited to give out only mandatory minimum sentences to drug offenders. They are not allowed to use discretion on any case. “After working for two years, the commission recommended creating uniform standards for determining which offenders are drug-addicted and allowing judges greater authority to select treatment instead of mandatory incarceration.” New York officials must continue to keep the violent criminals behind bars, while making a better use of the alternatives to prison, and make sure public safety is not lost (Report Recommends Revising New York’s Drug Laws).
Solution:
· Colorado’s Governor Ritter’s five year plan is to “cut down on repeat offenders by investing in prevention services for youth incarceration diversion, transitional services, substance abuse treatment, and offender education.” Ritter also want to “[return] sentencing discretion to judges, who are best positioned to evaluate a situation in its entirety.
· “The plan they put forward, would among other things, double the existing weight requirements for most major felony drug sales and possession crimes, make many lesser first-time felony drug offenders eligible for probation or a jail term rather than mandatory prisons, and expand parole as an option for convicted offenders” (NY Lawyers).
I think prevention and education are the best ways to rid the prisons of the racial disparity and lower costs for the Americans—or at least fund a better cause. I think mandatory minimums were set in place to capture the drug kingpins, but the strategy backfired because the kingpins give information to the authorities and get lesser sentences; meanwhile, the prisons are filling with small-time drug dealers and addicts. The streets are still filled with crime. Drugs are still easy to get and in large quantities. Lawmakers are trying to understand why anyone chose mandatory minimums as a fix-all law and understand what can take the place of mandatory minimums in an effective way to lower drug users in jail and in society. Lawmakers are flustered because fifty percent of prisoners are drug offenders. Take one dealer off the street, another takes his place. That simply doesn’t happen for other crimes such as murder, embezzlement or burglary.
Source Notes:
