Mandatory Minimum Penalties (MMPs) for Drugs

Mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) have been in existence in the society since time immemorial. The MMPs were introduced to curb drug trafficking and drug related offenses. MMPs targeted both high-level distributors and lower-level drug criminals. The type and weight of narcotics, notably, influenced the penalty accorded to persons found possessing drugs with the intent of distributing. Typically, MMPs have good intentions. However, good intentions do not necessarily translate to good results and policies. Some scholars have indicated that in countries such as the U.S., MMPS have led to mass incarceration (Tonry, 2014). Others have cited that MMPS help in minimizing cases of drug trafficking and associated crimes (Gabor & Crutcher, 2002) . The different opinions on these laws have created a push and pull in the fight against drugs (Schoenfeld, 2012 ) . As such, this report will discuss the issues surrounding MMPs for drugs and the possible mitigating measures. 

Analysis of the Issue 

MMPs were initiated to deal with drug trafficking and drug related offenses. But, how effective are the mandatory minimum penalties for drugs in serving this role? Various scholars have developed articles to either justify or criticize the MMPs. For instance, an article by Gabor & Crutcher (2002) indicated that MMPs are effective since they ensure that individuals who violate the Controlled Substance Act are convicted. Notably, the Substance Act prohibits exporting, importing, producing, cultivating, or possessing addictive substances with intent to distribute ( Gabor & Crutcher, 2002) . Under the MMPs, each illicit drug is allocated a fixed sentence. The severity of the penalty is dependent on the type and the amount of the drug. For example, possessing more than one kilogram of heroin would subject an individual to ten years in prison. Where lesser amounts of heroin (less than100 grams) are involved, the punishment would be less than five years sentencing. As such, the proponents of the MMPs perceive that having such measures would significantly help in reducing drug related cases. 

Schoenfed (2012) also recognized that the war on illicit drugs experienced a fierce tussle between the supporters and critics of the mandatory minimum penalties. He noted that the proponents of the mandatory minimum punishments were advocating for stringent penalties while the opponents of the same were suggesting that the mandatory sentencing ought to be reduced. These differences have created a heated debate that could not be neglected. Schoenfeld (2012) observed that the problem facing the war on drugs is associated with the efficiency and effectiveness of the adopted strategies. The author indicated that critics of MMPs want the state to embrace a method that consumes little state resources. The savings from such methodologies should then be directed to other meaningful projects such as paying for education, improving healthcare and infrastructures among others. 

The proponents of MMPs argue that increasing the severity of the penalties would help to significantly in the fight against drugs. Nonetheless, the critics of these laws claim that MMPs are ineffective. An article by Tonry (2014) stated that critics of MMPs state that there is little evidence to suggest that MMPs positive impact on the fight against drug offenses. He indicated that when a drug offender is convicted, another member is often picked or rather selected to take his or her position. Through this process, drug traffickers can still manage to continue their trade. 

Supporters of MMPs perceive that severe sentences have significant deterrent effects on drug offenders. On the contrary, the opponents of mandatory minimum penalties indicate that conviction, prosecution, and sentencing among other processes have a direct deterrent effect on drug criminals. S ubjecting an individual to additional four years of punishment inflicts unwarranted and unnecessary pain particularly when a one-year sentence has a deterrent effect that is equal to that of a five-year sentence. According to Bernick & Larkin (2014), MMPs lengthened sentences and that influences the public attitude towards the criminal justice system negatively. Webster & Antony (2015) also added that MMPs led to mass imprisonments and lengthened penalties. In the U.S., for example, MMPs have led to mass incarceration. As a result, the population of individuals imprisoned in the state has increased significantly ( Schoenfeld, 2012) . Maintaining prisoners in prisons is an expensive process. As such, the mandatory minimum penalties were cost-ineffective. It consumes state resources that could be used to improve sectors such as health, transport, and education among others ( Schoenfeld, 2012) . 

Further, Webster & Antony (2015) stated that MMPs limited the powers of the judges. Due to such limitations, these laws tend to be disproportionate. In most cases, judges are forced to subject both first-time offenders and repeat offenders to the same punishment levels. For example, in the U.S., the judiciary served a financially unstable woman harshly. The woman (a mother of four children) had accepted to receive $100 from a stranger to transport a package containing 232g of base cocaine (Bernick & Larkin, 2014). Notably, she was not aware of the contents of the package. Nevertheless, the court sentenced her to 10years in jail. The judges understood that their ruling was unjust, but they could do nothing to salvage the situation. Apparently, this is a clear indication the MMPs are unfair and limit judicial powers in some instances (Spohn 2014). 

A report by Belackova, et al., (2017) indicated that MMPs prescribed maximum sentences for possession of small quantities of some drugs. For instance, the possession of small amounts of marijuana attracted a maximum penalty of one year. However, the possession of small weights of drugs apart from marijuana draws maximum sentences of five years in states such as Florida (Belackova et al., 2017). In the same article, the authors demonstrate that possession of prohibited drugs with the intent to distribute can attract severe penalties of more than 15years. The table below provides MMPs for selected drugs: 

Solution 

Nevertheless, when fighting drugs, one question comes to mind. How can justice be served best? Is it by setting fixed punishment for every drug offense? Alternatively, should judges be allowed to develop penalties and mitigating measures for the various drug related offenses? In order to address this problem, two approaches can be used. In the first approach, judges need to be given the autonomy to determine the verdicts of certain cases (Spohn 2014) . As indicated herein, using fixed sentencing for particular drug offenses can be beneficial and detrimental in some instances Bernick & Larkin (2014) . It leads to harsh and irrational sentencing for some individuals. Allowing the judges to analyze events and give verdicts based on their analysis would help in restoring public confidence in the judicial system. 

Second, the using drug type and quantity to sentence individual is a sound idea. Nonetheless, including criminal history when giving verdicts would play a significant role in bettering the MMPs. Incorporating conviction history would have a greater impact in ensuring that justice is best served. Apparently, it is irrational to subject first-time and repeat offenders to the same punishment. Such judgments are fair to repeat drug offenders and harsher on first-time drug criminals. 

The Appropriate Solution 

The best remedy for the issues associated with MMPs is allowing the judges with the liberty to determine sentences on particular issues. Traditionally, no one individual is above the law. However, the law should never be rigid. In many states, laws have been amended to address particular societal issues. For instance, the problem of guns in America led to law amendments in some countries following landmark rulings in supreme courts. As such, giving the judges the autonomy to demonstrate their competence would play a pivotal role in improving the outcomes of judicial activities. In this case, the judges would have a decision to make on which situations attract lesser and severe sentence depending on the evidence at their disposal. 

Conclusion 

MMPs serve to ensure that individuals who violate CSAs are punished accordingly. However, they are ineffective and unjust in some situations. MMPs are associated with increased sentences that lead to overcrowding in prisons. Increased prison population leads to massive consumption of public resources. On the other hand, conviction and prosecution have better deterrent effects that the severity of the sentencing. Thus, subjecting drug offenders to additional years in prison in instances where the same outcomes could be achieved within a year is economically detrimental to both the offender and society. Nonetheless, this paper suggests that better judicial outcomes can be realized if judges are given the liberty to determine case results from the evidence presented to them. 

References 

Belackova, V, et al. (2017) "Assessing the concordance between illicit drug laws on books and drug law enforcement: Comparison of three states on the continuum from "decriminalized" to "punitive." The International Journal of Drug Policy 41:148-157. 

Bernick, E. & Larkin, P. (2014). Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms . Retrieved on 19 th July 2017 from http://www.heritage.org/node/11482/print-display. 

Bjerk D. (2017). Mandatory minimums and the sentencing of federal drug crimes. The Journal of Legal Studies, 46(1):93-128. 

Gabor, T., & Crutcher, N. (2002). Mandatory minimum penalties: Their effects on crime, sentencing disparities, and justice system expenditures . Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics Division. 

Schoenfeld, H. (2012). The war on drugs, the politics of crime, and mass incarceration in the United States.  J. Gender Race & Just. ,  15 :315-352. 

Spohn, C. (2014) "Twentieth-Century Sentencing Reform Movement: Looking Backward, Moving Forward." Criminology and Public Policy 13(4):535-545. 

Tonry, M (2014). "Remodeling American Sentencing: A Ten-Step Blueprint of Moving Past Mass Incarceration." Criminology and Public Policy 13(4):503-533. 

Webster, C.M. & Anthony, N. D. (2015) "US punitiveness 'Canadian style'? Cultural values and Canadian punishment policy." Punishment and Society 17(3):299-321 .