As this does make it, so all people are

As individuals see it is good with mandatory minimum like
keeping offenders in longer than the people that oppose and think it doesn’t
scare criminals enough. We do have our judges that place the laws of the
mandatory minimum, so the offenders can pay for the crime they committed. So,
while these sentences are based on everyone is equal, I don’t think we should
go by a book on a belief everyone is equal as every case is different. For
instance, a sex offender in prison much longer than a drug offender as we would
not want the predator wandering in our neighborhood without possible help, rehabilitation
or enrollment in the sexual offender website whereas a drug offender we could
assist with getting them the resources they need to heal from their illness and
stabilize their sickness. As mandatory minimums require a judge to set the
sentence sometimes having individuals question the length of that time.

Even though mandatory minimums were meant to eliminate the inconsistencies
under the previous federal sentencing system with the concept of equality this
does make it, so all people are equal before the law and if any legal
discrepancy requires justification it is considered among the society. However,
is this how we should be looking at every case as there are drug dealers
getting longer sentences than those that did a more violent act, for instance,
sexual abuse? It’s like we would be treating all cases the same according to
the Aristotelian sense, which in that case, offenders would receive the same
sentence in all acts of violence. Which then this would be a violation of
equality. While the inconsistent application of mandatory minimums has gotten
stronger, differences in both expanding the sentencing differences between
analogous cases and requiring the same base sentences in patently, unlike
cases. Particularly disturbing is the appearance, if not reality, of
differences along racial or ethnic lines.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

As people believe the minimum sentence helps, others contemplate
if being incarcerated does justice at all. Though excessive incarceration is
happening more to minorities than to Caucasians, in 2010, 74.4% of federal drug
offenders on mandatory minimum sentencing were black or Hispanic (Mandatory Minimums
2015). Although sentencing is different for everyone, judges will apply the
most appropriate and fair verdict regarding the crime that inmates have
committed. Also, if an attorney is present they will try to be fair with negotiating
a plea or even sentence but nonetheless the decision is up to the judge in the
end!

The mandatory minimum sentencing can generate strong ethical
views for and against the laws. Supporters believe the rulings help with
keeping offenders imprisoned longer, defending against differences in the
sentencing period and prevent against a drug, weapon and sexual assault
offenses. However, having lower level offenders testify against the
higher-level offenders can be positive as it can assist in an investigation
with getting a guilty plea from another offender.

As with every crime, there is a punishment to follow, which
requires a judge to impose a mandatory minimum by law (Cato 2010). This means
that since the year 1980 the number of inmates behind bars has quadrupled. When
a judge enforces a mandatory minimum, it is the minimum sentence that is
imposed for crimes without consideration of justifying the circumstances. The
first established sentences were in the state of Connecticut in 1969 and
expanded throughout the 1980s and 1990s, exemplify a shift in public policy to
impose a specific amount of imprisonment based on the crime committed and the
defendant’s criminal history, and away from other individual offender
characteristics and circumstances (Mandatory 2005).