Mandatory sentencing
Encyclopedia : M : MA : MAN : Mandatory sentencing
|
| Criminal procedure |
|---|
| Criminal investigation |
| Arrest warrant · Search warrant |
| Probable cause · Knock and announce |
| Exigent circumstance |
| Search and seizure · Arrest |
| Right to silence · Miranda warning (U.S.) |
| Grand jury |
| Criminal prosecution |
| Statute of limitations |
| Bill of attainder · Ex post facto law |
| Criminal jurisdiction · Extradition |
| Inquisitorial system · Adversarial system |
| Arraignment · Indictment |
| Nolo contendere (U.S.) · Plea bargain |
| Rights of the accused |
| Right to a fair trial |
| Presumption of innocence |
| Jury trial · Speedy trial |
| Habeas corpus · Bail |
| Exclusionary rule (U.S.) |
| Self-incrimination · Double jeopardy |
| Verdict and sentencing |
| Acquittal · Conviction (law)>Conviction |
| Not proven (Scot.) |
| Mandatory sentencing |
| Suspended sentence |
| Parole · Probation |
| Tariff (UK) · Life licence (UK) |
| Dangerous offender (Can.) |
| Cruel and unusual punishment |
| Capital punishment · Execution warrant |
| Related areas of law |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
| Civil procedure |
| Portals: · |
History
In the United Kingdom, the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965 abolished the death penalty in most cases and laid down a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment on a conviction for murder in English law. The mandatory life sentence was one of the key planks in garnering support for the abolition of the death penalty, but has been criticised in recent years as being too inflexible (although, in practice, many convicted murderers are released on life licence after serving a substantial period in prison). By way of contrast, a judge has a broad discretion on a conviction of manslaughter in English law to pass any sentence from an absolute discharge to life imprisonment. In 2003 Parliament also passed a law (effective in 2004) introducing mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for possession of certain kinds of firearms (or 3 years for juveniles).In 1973, New York State introduced mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of more than four ounces (103g) of a hard drug. Similar laws were introduced across the United States, and at the Federal level, the United States federal courts are guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.[#endnote_DEA] See War on Drugs for more information about U.S. drug laws.
Both Singapore and Malaysia have mandatory death penalty for certain offences, most notably the possession of a certain amount of illegal drugs. (See Capital punishment in Singapore). In the past Taiwan also had a large number of offences that carried mandatory death penalty, although most of these laws have been relaxed somewhat in recent years.
Three strikes law
California's 1994 three strikes law was the first mandatory sentencing law to gain widespread publicity and was subsequently adopted in most United States jurisdictions. This policy mandates imprisonment for a minimum of 25 years after a third serious felony conviction.
A similar 'three strikes' policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997.[Text of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997] and [Text of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997] from The Stationery Office This legislation enacted a mandatory life sentence on a conviction for a second "serious" offence (i.e. a 'two strikes' law), a minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offence involving a class A drug, and a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for those convicted for the third time of burglary. An amendment by the Labour opposition established that mandatory sentences should not be imposed if the judge considered it unjust.
According to figures released by the British government in 2005, just three drug dealers and eight burglars received mandatory sentences in the next seven years, because judges thought a longer sentance was unjust in all other drug and burglary cases where the defendant was found guilty. However in 2003 a new 'two strikes' law was enacted (effective April 4, 2005), requiring courts to presume that a criminal who commits his second violent or dangerous offence deserves a life sentence unless the judge is satisfied that the defendant is not a danger to the public. This is expected to result in far more life sentences than the 1997 legislation.[Text of the Criminal Justice Act 2003] and [Text of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003] from The Stationery Office
Australia’s Northern Territory in March 1997 introduced mandatory sentences of one month to one year for the third offence regarding property and theft. They were later adopted by Western Australia.
Arguments for and against mandatory sentencing
Adherents of mandatory sentencing believe that it reduces crime and ensures uniformity in sentencing. Potential criminals and repeat offenders are expected to avoid crime because they can be certain of their sentence if they are caught.
Arguments against mandatory sentencing include claims that it is unfair and can cause overcrowding in prisons. It is widely argued that such laws unfairly target disadvantaged minority groups who are more likely to be imprisoned because they are most likely to come into contact with the justice system by commiting crimes. In the United States critics have argued that laws designed to counter drug overlords were trapping minor offenders and imprisoning some for life. Opponents say that uniform sentencing cannot be fair for non-uniform crimes and that it is not possible to build a pre-determined tariff that can cover all circumstances. Further, sentences do not necessarily encapsulate the full impact on a criminal defendant - social stigma and collateral consequences of criminal charges can penalize a defendant beyond the terms of the sentence itself.
In the United States mandatory sentencing laws are being repealed. An academic study of the Massachusetts prison population published by Harvard in 1997 found that nearly half of the offenders sentenced to long mandatory-minimum terms for drug related offenses had no record of violent crime. The study concluded that jailing nonviolent drug offenders does not cure drug addiction and that the laws were "wasting prison resources on nonviolent, low-level offenders and reducing resources available to lock up violent offenders". Cases such as that of Hamedah Hasan have received some media attention and there are organizations pushing for the reveiw of mandatory sentencing laws.[#endnote_IDPI]
Opposition to juvenile mandatory sentencing in Australia and a harshly critical United Nations report caused the government to intervene in the Northern Territory in 2000[#endnote_NT]. The debate became particularly heated in 2001 after a young aboriginal/indigenous man committed suicide whilst serving time for stealing stationery worth AUS$90. The Northern Territory repealed their mandatory sentencing laws in October 2001. An analysis of the effects of mandatory sentencing concluded that indigenous people were heavily over-represented, the length of the minimum sentence was not an adequate deterrent, the effect on prison population was unmanageable and that the level of custodial sentencing rose by 50% under mandatory sentencing.
Australia, Mexico, New Zealand and some other countries employ a system of mandatory restorative justice, in which the criminal must apologise to the victim or provide some form of reparation instead of being imprisoned for minor crimes. In serious crimes, some other form of punishment is still used.
References
- ↑ [references and a chart of U.S. federal mandatory minimum drug sentences]
- ↑ [Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative page on Hamedah Hasan]
- ↑ [Mandatory sentencing for adult property offenders: The Northern Territory Experience] (2003)
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.