The concept of upholding society's best interest has been prevalent in the American criminal justice system since the colonial period. The principles behind this concept have been perhaps most influenced by 18 th -century criminologist Cesare Beccaria, who argued that the punishment of a crime should not exceed the dangers caused by the crime. Today, US laws have several mandatory minimum penalties for cases of drug trafficking, child pornography, sexual abuse, and fraud. Judges are however allowed discretionary freedom depending on specific case circumstances and environments. This paper identifies and discusses the value of mandatory sentencing to the American justice system and its impacts on society and correctional services programs.
Mandatory or compulsory sentencing refers to the legal provisions that require a judge to pronounce specific predetermined sentences for a person convicted in a particular count. In the US mandatory sentences are pronounced by congress and are aimed at expediting the court process while ensuring uniformity of consequences ( Schlesinger, 2017) . The idea behind mandatory sentences is that the crimes covered under such laws are extremely heinous and it is counterproductive to allow the offenders back into society without sufficient punishment. Proponents of mandatory sentencing argue that the practice promotes fairness and consistency and deter potential and repeat offenders.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Throughout the history of the American criminal justice system utilized the three principals of policy, facts, and decision applications to promote judicial discretion in determining cases. However, since the early 1900s there was an increased shift towards mandatory sentencing. Perhaps one of the most common applications of mandatory sentencing in the US has been with drug-related incidences has seen with the Boggs Act of 1951 and the Anti-drug Abuse Act of 1986 ( Walker & Mezuk, 2018) . Several states have also instituted mandatory sentencing, with an example being the state of Florida 10-20-life statue covering on the use of firearms to commit crimes.
Proponents of mandatory sentencing argue that the practice helps to decrease the rate of crime by making the value of a crimeless lucrative compared to its consequences. Mandatory sentencing may also help in stopping unjust sentencing. While most judicial officers are honest and professional there exist several corrupt elements within the system, mandatory sentencing would ensure that individual biases would not come to play when making pronouncements.
Despite the various benefits noted with instituting mandatory sentencing, its value for the larger society has been largely questioned by critics. The first principle objection to mandatory sentencing is that it shifts discretion from the judge. The public, through constitutional organs, has instituted the judiciary to act as an impartial adjudicator in interpreting laws and assessing evidence before making judgments. Mandatory sentencing shifts the judicial discretion to prosecutors who might often end up pilling charges on a suspect to make them plead guilty. The overall effect is the conviction of innocent persons and possibilities of racial profiling.
According to the National Association for Shoplifting Prevention (NASP), shoplifting is one of America’s most expensive crime, accounting for more than $13 billion worth of value ( Warner et al., 2018) . Shoplifting does not affect a retailer’s profitability but also increases the value of goods and causes extra inflation. The results are felt by the general public albeit in a subtle way. If congress instituted mandatory sentencing of eight years jail-time for every convicted shoplifter, there would be massive impacts both for the society and the criminal justice system.
Implementing mandatory sentencing for shoplifting crimes would have huge deterrence effect in American. Under current laws shoplifting is treated as misdemeanor; most offenders can be released on conditions of good behavior or lenient fines not above $500 ( Warner et al., 2018) . However, shoplifting high-value goods such as jewelry is charged as a felony offense. For most people in America, shoplifting is considered a victimless crime hence there is no major deterrence. Most people would consider it justifiable for hungry homeless person to steal from a major retail shop. Instigating mandatory sentencing for shoplifting would help in curbing the offense since most shoplifters will be wary of the punitive measures today.
Despite its obvious impact on deterrence, mandatory sentencing for shoplifting would also have significant effects on the rates of incarceration. Increased incarcerations are in contradiction with society's best interest since the society ends up losing productive members of society ( Spohn, 2017) . More incarcerations also mean more public funding on correction and rehabilitation centers. Mandatory sentencing affects not only the society but also the individual. For instance, sending a desperate and hungry teenager to jail for eight-years would only increase his woes and apathy. Overall, mandatory sentencing for shoplifting is detrimental for the society and the convicted persons.
Numerous studies have shown that while mandatory sentencing is effective in deterring some crimes, it is largely ineffective in deterring targeted crimes ( Sundt et al., 2019) . While mandatory sentencing might work in the short-term, it is more effective to act in addressing the causes of criminal behavior and instituting restorative justice. Like shoplifting instituting mandatory sentences for a crime such as drunk driving would be in contrast with society's best interest.
Perhaps the biggest impact of mandatory sentencing is in the correctional and rehabilitation services. With provisions for mandatory sentencing, more people are being incarcerated in American prisons and rehabilitation centers. Longer sentences have also meant that a sizeable portion of the American population spent productive time and energy inside prisons. Today, over 25% of the world’s prisoners are found in the US; this has been a bone contention for many activists who argue that the American justice system is largely biased and ineffective. Some studies have even questioned the effectiveness of jail terms in preventing crime. A study by Spohn (2017) indicated that long jail terms might even result in radicalization and hardening of people would otherwise be productive members of society. The effects are increased crime rates in the long-run and minimal return on investment on the ‘social investment’ that is correction centers.
Instead of mandatory sentencing, Congress and other legislative bodies across the US should focus on mandatory restorative justice. Under mandatory restorative justice convicted offenders are forced to engage in activity that will help in restoring what they have damaged ( Schlesinger, 2017) . For instance, in New Zealand the law requires offenders to personally apologize to their victims. Several reformist organizations in the US are engaged in activities to promote rehabilitation schemes and workforce opportunities for convicted offenders. These developing opportunities will eliminate the need for mandatory sentencing.
Overall, the concept of mandatory sentencing can help in deterring potential and repeat offenses. However, this approach of administering justice has been criticized for its ineffectiveness to deliver the best value for society. The approach shifts discretion from judges to prosecutors allowing room for biases and coercion of suspects. Mandatory sentencing has also played a great role in increasing the numbers of incarcerated persons in America while completely failing to provide restoration to society. This paper concludes by urging and demonstrating the need for compulsory restorative justice in the place of sentencing.
References
Schlesinger, T. (2017). Mandatory Sentencing. The Encyclopedia of Corrections , 1-4.
Spohn, C. (2017). Race and sentencing disparity. Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform , 4 , 169-186.
Sundt, J., Schwaeble, K., & Merritt, C. C. (2019). Good governance, political experiences, and public support for mandatory sentencing: Evidence from a progressive US state. Punishment & Society , 21 (2), 141-161.
Walker, L. S., & Mezuk, B. (2018). Mandatory minimum sentencing policies and cocaine use in the US, 1985–2013. BMC international health and human rights , 18 (1), 43.
Warner, K., Spiranovic, C., Freiberg, A., & Davis, J. (2018). Mandatory sentencing? Use [with] discretion. Alternative Law Journal , 43 (4), 289-294.
