Mandatory sentencing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| Criminal procedure |
|---|
| Criminal trials and convictions |
| Rights of the accused |
| Right to a fair trial · Speedy trial |
| Jury trial · Presumption of innocence |
| Exclusionary rule (U.S.) |
| Self-incrimination · Double jeopardy |
| Verdict |
| Acquittal · Conviction |
| Not proven (Scot.) · Directed verdict |
| Sentencing |
| Mandatory · Suspended · Custodial |
| Dangerous offender (Can.) |
| Capital punishment · Execution warrant |
| Cruel and unusual punishment |
| Post-conviction events |
| Parole · Probation |
| Tariff (UK) · Life licence (UK) |
| Miscarriage of justice |
| Exoneration · Pardon |
| Related areas of law |
| Criminal defenses |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
| Civil procedure |
| Portals: Law · Criminal justice |
A mandatory sentence is a court decision setting where judicial discretion is limited by law. Typically, people convicted of certain crimes must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. Mandatory sentencing laws vary from country to country.
Contents |
[edit] 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. 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 a mandatory death penalty, although most of these laws have been relaxed somewhat in recent years.
[edit] Three strikes law
In 1994, California introduced a "three strikes law", which was the first mandatory sentencing law to gain widespread publicity. Similar laws were subsequently adopted in most United States jurisdictions. The law requires imprisonment for a minimum term of 25 years after a defendant is convicted of a third serious felony.
A similar 'three strikes' policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997.[1] This legislation enacted a mandatory life sentence on a conviction for a second "serious" violent or sexual 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 sentence 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.[2]
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.
[edit] 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 committing 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.
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. 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 apologize 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.
[edit] People sentenced to mandatory sentences
- Morton Berger (200 years for downloading child pornography)
- Genarlow Wilson (10 years for 17-year-old who had consensual oral sex with 15-year old)
