Minimum Crime Sentencing *To be or not to be?*

I’m sure in kindergarten, everyone had that incident where they stole a marker from their classroom, and faced consequences like time out or something similar. Well what if (as a kindergartener) for a small “crime” like that, you were forced to stay in your room for one month straight. That scenario is the basics of minimum jail sentencing (minus the crime of course and a little more extreme). Mandatory minimum jail sentencing? Being forced to a sentence that maybe you don’t deserve, is more like it. Placing a mandatory minimum sentence is too much of an injustice to continue using as threat, and the government needs to change this.

Senator Patrick Leahy thinks that this policy of mandatory minimum jail sentencing should be ended. There are many consequences to this that certainly aren’t benefiting the U.S.. For one, due to this policy there has been a dramatic growth in the federal prison populations. What if the population grows so large that there is no longer space for the real criminals, the murderers are running free while the small time robbers are locked up. Another consequence that we are facing because of this is loss of capital. As of now, we spend about $6.4 million on federal prisons- if the populations weren’t so high, the prisons wouldn’t need to use so much of the Justice Department’s budget. A semi-recent case of this is of Weldon Angelos, a 23-year-old man with no criminal history. He received a minimum sentencing of 55 years for selling a total of $350 worth of marijuana on three separate occasions while in possession of a gun. While this is a serious crime, 55 years seems like a bit of a long sentence to accompany it. When he’s released, this case will have cost the American taxpayers $1.5 million. In my opinion, judges should be deciding sentences on a case-by-case basis, not by a standard.

Henry Garza believes that this policy should be kept in our nation’s court system. One reason he believes this is because it serves as a threat to “prospective” inmates. Meaning people who may be thinking of committing a crime will see that they are definitely going to jail for x amount of time and possibly change their minds. While this may serve as a threat, is it really strong enough to make a difference? I don’t think so. Most people who are committing crimes aren’t thinking straight in the first place, let alone listening and thinking about possible punishments. Henry Garza also thinks that mandatory minimum sentencing makes the justice system more fair and consistent. But is what we really want  consistency? Allowing minor crimes to be treated the same as bigger felonies doesn’t seem fair.  Henry Garza believes that “mandatory minimum sentencing helps ensure that if you do the crime, you do the time.” While I do agree that criminals should be punished, I don’t think a standard is fair.

After reading this article, I realized how unfair the federal justice system is. This policy of mandatory minimum sentencing, it was an attempt to make things more fair and consistent. But I don’t think it makes sense and doesn’t seem right. Criminals should be punished based on their crime, not on what the federal standard says.