Criminology

The main focus of the term paper is the effect of mandatory minimum sentencing on the judicial system of the United States. At first the paper looks at the background information concerning this form of sentencing. The paper then discusses in detail various effects that have resulted from the application of mandatory minimum sentencing in the country. The term paper notes that this form of sentencing has both positive and negative effects on the countrys judicial system.

Introduction
Mandatory sentencing refers to a court decision that is highly controversial, in which the discretion of the judiciary is restricted by law. Typically, individuals convicted of some forms of crimes have to go through a punishment with a set minimum of years. Increased punishment and mandatory sentencing were enacted in 1952 when the congress of the US passed the Act of Bongs as well as the control Act of narcotics. These acts effectively made an individual apprehended for the possession of marijuana for the first time to serve a minimum of between two and ten years in jail and a fine not exceeding 20000. Under mandatory minimum sentencing, the courts are under obligation to sentence the offenders for a period not less than the one set by the statutes. Mandatory sentencing has been credited to crime reduction as people fear committing such crimes since they are aware that these crimes are capable of imprisoning them for a long period of time (Brinkley, 2003).

Effects of mandatory minimum sentencing
Any assessment of the manner in which law operates must take into consideration the effect of law on pretrial events. This is due to the fact that mandatories are only applicable when a law breaker is convicted because of offences that are well specified in various legislations. Almost unanimously, studies that have been carried out in respect to mandatory minimum sentences have revealed that the aspects which are most severe are usually moderated by defenders and prosecutors in decisions that are largely pretrial (Samaha, 2005). For the defenders, they are always very reluctant in pleading guilty to crimes when the most likely sentence will be harsh on them. This implies that one of the effects of mandatory minimum sentencing is increasing the depth of investigations as well as consuming more judicial time.

Since the accused are not swift in pleading guilty when they are aware that the crimes they have committed will attract a mandatory minimum sentence, more time will be consumed before such cases can be determined. The courts and the law enforcers have therefore been compelled by these forms of sentences to spend significant amounts of time when handling such cases. This particular effect resulting from the mandatory minimum sentencing has greatly strained the available resources of dealing with criminals in the American judicial system. When the accused is reluctant in pleading guilty to the charges brought against him or her, the law enforcers are forced to carryout more comprehensive and thorough investigations which can be effectively used in a court of law against the defendant. This is one of the positive effects of the mandatory minimum sentencing since it has reduced the number of people being incarcerated unjustly without sufficient evidence. The mandatory minimum sentences have therefore improved the efficiency of the decisions made by the courts (Messner  Rosenfeld, 2001).

Although these sentences have improved justice in American judicial system, they have been responsible for increasing the amount of time and resources spent in such crimes. The attorneys defending law breakers, who have committed crimes attracting such crimes, are known to apply any available loophole within the American judicial system and laws in ensuring that their clients are not made to serve such sentences. They apply tactics that end consuming a lot of time and thus making it more difficult for the courts to make decisions. This particular effect has impacted negatively on the countrys judicial system as it not only affects cases involving crimes attracting mandatory minimum sentences, but also affects the other cases in general. At times, the courts shy from sentencing people with such crimes without sufficient and highly convincing evidence. This therefore means that the American courts can easily release a criminal even though there is some evidence by arguing that it is not sufficient. The main reason of doing so is to avoid instances of jailing people for long periods of time and yet the evidence that was brought before the court was not convincing enough. The courts have either to release such people or imprison them for the stipulated period. The decisions of the American courts have thus been greatly affected by the mandatory minimum sentences which are quite rigid (Worrall, 2006).

Some impact studies assessing the effects of mandatory minimum sentencing have indeed noted that the American judicial system have continued to function as it previously did before these laws were passed. Despite the intense political campaigns surrounding the passage of these laws, offenders who are mostly affected by them, have been made to serve long prison sentences. This is the case since their cases are determined using both the existing laws governing their crimes, as well as the mandatory minimum sentences added. The mandatory minimum sentencing has greatly affected the judicial system of America as various states interpret them differently. Some states such as California argue that three-strike laws are only applicable to serious felonies. This implies that for the similar crimes, the offenders are likely to be sentenced differently depending on the state in which the sentences are being passed. Such an effect does not auger well for the countrys judicial system since all the states apply the same constitution and thus similar sentences should be offered for similar crimes. If this is not the case, the judicial system cannot be said to be effective in achieving one of its major objectives, which is fairness and justice for all (Goldberg, 2009).

Minimum mandatory sentencing implies that once an offender is arrested and taken to court for certain crimes, upon finding such an individual guilty, the court will sentence the law breaker a period equal or exceeding a certain minimum sentence. This is knowledge that is common to the general American population. Most of the minimum sentences offered to law breakers are long periods of time. The American criminals are thus greatly deterred to commit crimes attracting mandatory sentences. Therefore, mandatory sentencing has greatly affected the number of people committing such crimes. There are fewer instances of people committing crimes which are known to attract mandatory minimum sentences. Criminals shy from committing such crimes and therefore one of greatest effects that can be associated with mandatory minimum sentencing is crime reduction (Kelso, Altam Associates, Alaska State Office of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, Anchorage (Alaska), Prosecutors Office, 1984).

Several significant issues of proportionality and equity remain despite the passage of these laws. This is the case because the criteria and conditions under which most prosecutors in American courts agree not to look for penalties that are harsh are in most cases unirreviewable and are capable of producing economically or racially disparate outcomes. In addition, the American judiciarys role has relatively become weaker while the role of the prosecutors has greatly increased. The decisions of the prosecutors concerning charging offenders largely determine the extent to which the courts will apply the mandatory minimum sentencing. As a result, in most jurisdictions across the United States, judges are locked out in negotiations of guilty plea. The judiciary thus has less influence when it comes to charging criminals whose cases have gone through such negotiations (Mackenzie, 2005).

When any defendant is brought before an American court and is charged with a crime that attracts mandatory minimum sentencing, the judges role is mostly restricted to either presiding over the particular trial or acknowledging the guilty plea, and following conviction, the judge is further limited to only prescribing the stipulated sentence. Under this form of system, the charging decision of a prosecutor is largely used in determining the sentence the defendant will serve. The mandatory minimum sentencing have therefore the effect of transferring more judicial powers to the prosecutors while at the same time reducing the powers of the judges. These effects create some loopholes which can be used by prosecutors in making the judges issue the wrong rulings and thus affect the fairness and equity of the countrys judicial system (Messner  Rosenfeld, 2001). 

Another means through which effects and impacts of mandatory minimum sentencing can be conceptualized is through procedures of the American courts. This can effectively be done by imagining the timing of the major and significant decisions shifting they are usually shifted from the time of sentencing and convictions to earlier stages in the processing of cases. In most cases, the police and other law enforcers are usually basically interested in certain short prison terms and convictions for drug dealers of lower level. This has had significant effects on the disrupting effectively the open air markets of drugs which has been greatly targeted by these minimum mandatory sentences. In such cases, the police officers are less willing to endure the tough paperwork as well as the trial testimonies that are required in achieving the mandatory punishments. Therefore, the police officers are more willing to deal with cases whose probable convictions include short term imprisonments, thus shying away from cases involving a lot of commitments (Brinkley, 2003).

Under such conditions, the police officers normally prefer booking suspects for the crimes which are less likely to attract mandatory sentences, like possessing drugs in small amounts. As a result, prosecutors are more likely to concur with various diversion programs and in some instances, dismissing cases out rightly. Such is mostly likely to take place, when according to the prosecutors or police officers judgment, the defendants being accused are not as risky as the impending incapacitative sentence. The most crucial procedural stage in respect to quantity of cases affected, as well as the likely impact on the sentencing results, is the plea negotiations and also the decision of the defendant to plead guilty before a court of law. Very few defendants will under normal circumstances accept to plead guilty especially to charges that are carrying mandatory minimum sentences. Instead, such defendants will opt to face the trial applying the assumption that after all they have nothing at all to lose should they be found guilty after the trial. In fact, they stand to gain significantly should the court eventually declare that they are innocent and thus release them without having served any sentence (Samaha, 2005).

In virtually all jurisdictions in the country, the rates of trials increased dramatically following the introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing. Most of the defendants became more reluctant to plead guilty before courts of law which would automatically make them serve long sentences in correctional facilities. However, in majority of the scenarios, mandatory minimum sentencing has affected the judicial requirements most of which are inclined towards plea negotiations. Most of the factors that are responsible for triggering mandatory minimum sentencing include the use of guns, being convicted for a felony crime for the third time and possessing or selling drugs in great amounts. Such offences have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt for mandatory minimum sentencing to be applicable. In bargaining of plea, these factors are somehow flexible depending on the strength of the proof provided and the form of punishment the defendant would go through if convicted of the crime. Under most of these situations, the prosecutors mostly permit the defendants and suspects charged with such crimes to plead guilty to a misdemeanor which only attracts a jail term without necessarily triggering mandatory minimum sentencing (Worrall, 2006). 

Another major effect resulting from mandatory minimum sentencing on petition bargaining is defendant cooperations inducement. A prosecutor wishing to obtain any incriminating evidence has to turn the source that is most accurate, the defendant themselves. Defendants snitching on his or her co-defendants are rewarded with concessions of sentences. In most cases, the mostly easily understood and efficient reward a cooperator can receive from the prosecutor is promise of escaping from being charged with crimes carrying mandatory sentences. This particular practice is quite widespread within the judicial system of United States and can largely be attributed to the mandatory minimum sentencing. This conduct is in particular widespread within the federal system particularly where more than fifty percent of offenders serving sentences in the federal correctional facilities have been convicted of such cases as gun use and drug crimes. According to a study that was carried out by General Accounting Office in 1993, about 15 of all cases involving various offenders, were in the real sense convicted because of violating several federal laws which carried a mandatory minimum sentence, but due to the fact that such offenders significantly assisted the police officers during investigations, they were jailed for lesser periods. Furthermore, the proportion of defendants negotiating for pre bargains to crimes that are not carrying the mandatory minimum sentence, in reward for their testimonies or other forms of assistance to the law enforcers is believed to be much higher according to the report, but such data cannot be available from the public databases (Brinkley, 2003).

The other effect of mandatory minimum sentencing is that it has a great influence on bringing an end to the system of parole decisions. The mandatory minimum sentencing does so by requiring offenders to serve not less than eighty five percent of their imprisonment term. The impact of these laws was very different from the classical media coverage, horrific crime, or lawmakers embrace, background of several states laws governing mandatory minimum sentencing. Advocates of federal government started a movement which was basically modeled on the sentencing Act of 1984 that re-modified the parole system and instituted the guidelines of federal sentencing by inserting a requirement of eighty five percent truth while sentencing offenders. As a result of mandatory minimum sentencing, some states such as New Jersey, judges and prosecutors usually agree to sentence the defendants found guilty at terms of lower base imprisonment instead of applying the typical prior passage of the laws. However, when the requirement of eighty five percent was computed, the final sentences served by offenders were much longer than the ones served prior to the implementation of this particular requirement. Therefore, in aggregate, the overall effect of the law was basically to increase the severity of sentencing to a greater extent that most of the supporters of mandatory minimum sentencing had initially anticipated and expected (Brinkley, 2003).

Majority of the proponents of mandatory minimum sentencing claim that these laws have greatly achieved incapacitation and deterrence with increased certainty as opposed to sentencing defendants under other judicial structures. Therefore one of the greatest effects of mandatory minimum sentencing is deterring offenders from committing such crimes as use of guns and drugs use and possession, which attract mandatory minimum sentencing. These laws have significantly discouraged offenders who are likely to commit certain offences. By the very fact that the knowledge of these sentences is in the public domain, most offenders shy from committing them. Mandatory minimum sentencing has been designed in such a way that it not only reduces but also eliminates any judicial discretion in selecting among several options of punishments. Before mandatory minimum sentencing was introduced in the country, the judges and prosecutors were believed to operate under the assumption of increased leniency and the incarcerated offenders were never deterred from committing crimes since could be imprisoned for only a short period of time which was not enough to prevent any persistent criminality behaviors among offenders (Samaha, 2005).

Most of the crimes that attract mandatory minimum sentencing in the United States are primarily committed by the African Americans and women. Most of the women serving various sentences in the countrys correctional facilities were charged with drug related crimes. Again, majority of the African American serving various sentences have been charged with either use of guns or drug related crimes. Therefore, to some extent mandatory minimum sentencing had the effect of propagating racial and gender discrimination in the country. If this form of sentencing had targeted other forms of crime such as white collar crimes, the American prisons would not the largely housing women and African Americans. These sentences can therefore be said to have had the effect of increasing racial and gender injustice (Messner  Rosenfeld, 2001). 

Conclusion
Laws governing mandatory minimum sentencing have significantly affected the manner in which justice system components operate, which were compelled to adopt their harsher aspects. But this means that the laws of mandatory minimum sentencing have not achieved the total incarcerative effect which was desired by their original drafters. A significant population of offenders, who are entitled to mandatory sentences, end up not receiving them, but generally, these offenders are perhaps punished in a more severe manner than they would under mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentencing has greatly affected the rates of crimes committed in the country. Fewer people are sentenced for crimes attracting mandatory minimum sentences, because most defendants are usually reluctant to plead guilty to such charges and at the same time fewer offenders are willing to commit crimes classified under mandatory crimes. Mandatory sentencing has also greatly affected the role of judges and prosecutors within the judicial system of the country. While the role of the prosecutors have been greatly increased that of the judges have been significantly curtailed.