Mandatory Minimum Sentence and its Impacts on Crime Management

Mandatory Minimum Sentence and its Impacts on Crime Management
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Mandatory Minimum Sentence and its Impacts on Crime Management
Introduction
Criminal sentences with minimum penalties set by statutory law are commonplace in various legal jurisdictions in the US, even though their impacts have been questioned.   Minimum penalties may apply to certain offenses, individual offenders, or specific combinations of offense and offender traits. Although state-specific and crime-specific obligatory minimum sentences differ, they often ask for the offender to serve a minimum amount of time in jail. While some required minimum sentences, including five years for gun possession, pertain to specific offending behaviors, others—such as “habitual offender laws” foster only particular groups of repeat offenders. Common examples of habitual offender laws are “three-strikes laws,” which normally call for a penalty of twenty-five years to life for a third violent crime. Part of the challenge in implementing the mandatory minimum sentence is that it can lead to punishments that extend beyond what a criminal activity warrants. The criminal justice system is structured to rehabilitate rather than punish, something that a mandatory minimum sentence has been cited for violating. This study will focus on assessing the impacts of mandatory minimum sentences on crime management with an emphasis on juveniles. The findings of the study will expose the strengths and weaknesses of mandatory minimum sentences. Having an insightful understanding of the mandatory minimum sentence on crime management should help with crime management in terms of how such a policy should be structured, changed, or eliminated to achieve the basic prescription of the criminal justice system, which is to rehabilitate.
Background of the Study
The mandatory minimum sentence has attracted analyses from multiple stakeholders in the recent past. The United States Sentencing Commission received information on 13,604 offenders who were found guilty of crimes carrying mandatory minimum sentences during the 2016 fiscal year (Foo, 2022). 13.4% of all federal offenders, or over 60% (61.3%) of those convicted of a crime with a mandatory minimum sentence, did not secure remission from the sentence and were consequently still subject to it at sentencing. In the same period, 13.4% of all federal offenders, or 61.3% of those convicted of a mandatory minimum offense but not exempted from the obligatory minimum punishment, were sentenced to the mandatory minimum. At sentencing, defendants who still had to pay a mandatory minimum penalty received sentences that were, on average, 138 months long. This is more than twice as long as the sentences of those who were exempt from the requirement (67 months). For those who were not found guilty of crimes requiring a minimum punishment, the typical sentence was 28 months. Children have not been excluded from the impacts of the mandatory minimum sentence. Currently, 12,000 people are serving time (life sentence) in US prisons due to crimes they committed before they were 18. With the existence of mandatory minimum sentence that covers children, the debate remains on whether the justice or criminal management system is operating within its mandate of rehabilitating the offenders.
Research Aim and Questions
This study will explore mandatory minimum sentences and their impacts on crime management among juveniles. To achieve its aim, the study will answer the following specific questions:
1 Does mandatory minimum sentence perform its mandate of rehabilitating the offenders?
2 What are the impacts of mandatory minimum sentences in deterring recidivism?
3 What changes should be instilled to steer better outcomes from mandatory minimum sentences?
Review of Literature
This chapter highlights some of the findings by different researchers about mandatory minimum sentences and their impacts on managing criminal activities. The chapter explores the publications in terms of what the researchers were seeking and how their findings could be valuable in revitalizing the criminal justice system for the better. For specific and grounded outcomes, this study will be based on the theory of restorative justice.
Theoretical Framework
The theory of restorative justice is a popular model for understanding how the criminal justice system can be structured to deliver better outcomes both for the criminals and all the stakeholders affected by criminal activities. The restorative justice perspective tries to repair the harm caused by crime, in contrast to traditional criminal justice views that place a greater emphasis on punishment as a deterrence to crime (Jarrell, 2019). By offering chances for atonement for offenders and promoting rapprochement with victims, restorative justice offers a strategy that is founded on neighborhood responses to crime. The idea takes into account both social and individual approaches, putting victims at the center of crime control and putting locals in the role of facilitators in this process.  The core tenet of the restorative justice idea is that participation in resolving criminal activities should come from those who have been most directly injured by it. Criminals must accept responsibility for their wrongdoing and the damage it has caused.
The theory of restorative justice relies on five principles that should guide the entirety of the criminal justice system. Primary among the principles is relationships. Every restorative justice procedure has a broken relationship at its core (Jarrell, 2019). Real people and real communities have suffered because of the harm that was done. Without solid relationships, it is more challenging for people to have happy lives and build places to call home. The restorative justice system fosters repairing these relationships. The relationship might begin to rebuild after the wrongdoer accepts responsibility for their actions and starts to make amends. The justice system, in this case, is mandated to allow the offenders to realize their crimes and offer to change by following strict steps in rebuilding the broken relationships. The restorative theory also focuses on responsibility in which every stakeholder stays responsible for their roles in fueling or combating criminal activities. The other principles that the theory of restorative justice fosters include repair, reintegration, and respect. Put simply, the theory of restorative justice fosters accommodating rehabilitation of criminal offenders by allowing them to understand their crimes and serve the punishment or responsibility that matches their crimes. Following the guidelines of restorative justice means that criminal offenders are not subjected to mandatory sentences just because they committed crimes falling within some categories.
The Tenets of Mandatory Sentencing
One of the questions that have been asked extensively is why the US would keep mandatory minimum sentences. Partly, such sentences are advantageous as they contribute to the reduction of serious criminal activities in the nation (Gorman, 2022). Potential offenders are likely to refrain from crimes if they understand the seriousness of the sentences that they may encounter after committing such crimes. Further, mandatory minimum sentences are known to stop unjust sentencing practices. That is, with standardized sentencing systems in place, the criminal justice system does not need to be biased to execute its mandate. On the same note, the role of a judge or the blames that a judge would take for particular sentences is reduced when state or federal standards are followed through the minimum sentences. Ultimately, mandatory sentences tend to confine criminals to longer sentences, which is advantageous as it protects society for longer periods.
While assessing the challenge of minimum sentences, Orendain et al. (2022) noted that the legal frame...