5

The US law seems to be quite enamoured with mandatory minimum sentences, especially when it comes to drug crimes.

Mandatory minimum sentences seem to have mostly impacted prison populations rather than lowering crime rates.

In her book The New Jim Crow Michelle Alexander writes:

Most people imagine that the explosion in the U.S. prison population during the past twenty-five years reflects changes in crime rates. Few would guess that our prison population leaped from approximately 350,000 to 2.3 million in such a short period of time due to changes in laws and policies, not changes in crime rates. Yet it has been changes in our laws—particularly the dramatic increases in the length of prison sentences—that have been responsible for the growth of our prison system, not increases in crime. One study suggests that the entire increase in the prison population from 1980 to 2001 can be explained by sentencing policy changes.

The study she cites is:

See Mauer, Race to Incarcerate, 33, 36—38, citing Warren Young and Mark Brown.

What political parties are in favor of such a system and why?

| improve this question | |
  • 3
    "Mandatory minimum sentences seem to have mostly impacted prison populations rather than lowering crime rates." And yet crime rates went down after mandatory minimum sentences were introduced. – Brythan May 30 '18 at 16:31
  • 2
    For starters, I imagine the prison industry is all in favor of them. – user1530 May 30 '18 at 17:07
  • 3
    @Brythan that's highly debatable, the least being that much of the minimum sentencing ended up being handed out to non-violent drug cases. pbs.org/newshour/politics/… – user1530 May 30 '18 at 17:08
  • 4
    This would be an interesting question, if written in a more objective way. Also, a reference to sustain the claim from the second paragraph is welcomed. – Alexei May 30 '18 at 17:18
  • 2
    @Brythan, Re "rates went down after": perhaps the rates of reportage went down. Also MMS are for too many a greater crime in of themselves, but street crime rates don't include the harms from lives stolen for free labor, (e.g. Texas prisons), nor unemployed workers being lowballed out of minimum wage jobs by firms that lease workers from prisons. – agc May 31 '18 at 2:28
10

Mandatory minimums are a sign of being 'hard on crime', which appeals to some people in both political parties.

Explicitly they prevent 'non-violent' drug related crimes from receiving light sentences, again stopping drugs is seen positively by some people on both sides of the aisle.

Bipartisan efforts in 2015 (Democrat President with Republican Congress and Senate) reduced them, so clearly there is no party with minimums as a core ideology.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Case in point, Baltimore City's fully Democratic City Counsel were torn over harsher sentencing guidelines that would have included a minimum of 1 year jail time if the offender was found in unlawful possession of a fire arm on first offense. – hszmv May 31 '18 at 19:13
  • 1
    The first sentence (particularly before the comma, might (at least it was for me) be hard to parse. Unfortunately, my English grammar isn't up to a possible clarification. Maybe single quotes around hard on crime? – CGCampbell Jun 1 '18 at 12:33
1

The desire for mandatory minimums tends to be driven by news stories like this one. The guy had been convicted of multiple robberies, assaults, and threats, and his girlfriend was obviously terrified of him, yet he was out to finally commit a murder, which may put him away for good. But people will ask "If he had been guilty of so many crimes previously, why was he free to kill someone?"

That is why people ask for mandatory minimums. It's not limited by political party; see three strikes laws in the US, for example, with such laws aplenty in both red and blue states.

| improve this answer | |
-6

Mandatory minimums are favored by those that want to lower crime and its attendant ills on society and families. Because of astonishingly high recidivism rates among these criminals, one has to conclude that additional rehabilitation is warranted and that removing them from society protects them and us.

Last week, the Department of Justice released an updated study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) showing that 83 percent of prisoners released by states are re-arrested within nine years of their release. 44 percent of released state prisoners were arrested during the first year after release, 68 percent were arrested within three years, and 79 percent within six years.

Second, the BJS study tells us that the crimes that federal drug felons will commit aren’t confined to drug crimes. According to the study, more than three-quarters (77 percent) of released drug offenders were arrested for a non-drug crime within nine years, and more than a third (34 percent) were arrested for a violent crime.

As Daniel Horowitz puts it, “when you let out drug offenders early from prison in this era, they will not only go back to selling even deadlier drugs, killing thousands, they will also commit other crimes” including overtly violent ones.

Another source of pro mandatory minimums is the for profit prison industry and prison union stakeholders. They actively lobby for this position, a gross conflict of interest in my viewpoint.

| improve this answer | |
  • 7
    The fact that there is high amounts recidivism shows that "rehabilitation" is not a priority of the US prison system, so arguing that they go back for more rehabilitation is kind of a ridiculous leap of logic. +1 for pointing out the prison lobby, though. – user1530 May 31 '18 at 21:00
  • @blip One would hope for a society that recidivism is low. Util that time, shorter sentences only result in more crime. They are intrinsically linked. I think you would agree that prison is fairly awful. What a terrible deterrent. The logic fallacy you make is you assume that criminals can be rehabilitated. – K Dog May 31 '18 at 21:08
  • 5
    @KDog that's not a logical fallacy. That's pretty much a known thing in much of the world. Our prison system does not make rehabilitation a priority. Why would it? There's no compelling reason to reduce prisoners when you make money off of them. – user1530 May 31 '18 at 22:21
  • 3
    @KDog Geneticists? Wut? – user1530 May 31 '18 at 22:48
  • 4
    Private prisons have no incentive to reduce recidivism because that would cut down on repeat business. – Paul Johnson Jun 1 '18 at 10:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .