Mandatory
Minimum Sentencing
During the 1970s and 1980s, the criminal justice system
began to migrate away from rehabilitative philosophies and moved towards more
punitive policies in an effort not to appear soft on crime. Presidential candidates even ran on platforms
that promised to crack down on crime to capitalize on the fears of society in regard
to crime and criminals. The increase in crime
led to very politically charged punitive policies that focused on the War on
Drugs and violent felony offenders. These policies have been criticized as unethical
because the discretion given to prosecutors to specify to whom or how (in
reference to felonies or misdemeanors) to apply the three-strikes rule and the
biases and disparity in sentencing; they not to mention that they have been
judged as ineffective.
In 1993, habitual felony laws (three-strikes legislation),
were enacted in Washington State requiring a life sentence with no chance of
parole for “offenders convicted for a third time of specific violent or serious
felonies” (Banks, 2013, pg. 196). California
ensued without support from their executive or legislative bodies with what was
characterized as “an extreme example of a populist preemption of criminal
justice policy-making” (Banks, 2013, pg. 196). The three-strikes legislation in California can
be applied to any felony. Spurred on by very public cases of murders, rapes
and other violent crimes committed by recently released career felons,
three-strikes ballot proposals became the standards for the federal government
and many other states to relieve public fear and concern over the increase in
crime rates. The goal was to make the deterrent
so severe that the habitual offender would consider the punishment and consider
the cost of further offense.
Unfortunately, most criminals do not keep abreast of changes in criminal
policies; they are informed of these changes at sentencing, much too late reconsider
their actions. And even if they are
aware of the consequences, their circumstances render them unable to rationally
connect the reality of the consequences to the crime.
The primary complaint was that “three strikes laws fail
to meet standards of equal justice for like kinds of criminal wrongdoing,
because these laws omit white-collar crimes and demonstrate ‘the strong and
ugly stains of race, class, and ethnic bias that have produced these laws”
(Banks, 2013, pg. 197). In other words,
the “war on drugs” gave legal justification and opportunity for the continuance
of a racist criminal justice system to apply laws with disparity under the mask
of protecting society (of the haves),
at the expense of the have nots. Anyone who looks with honesty at the criminal
justice system today should see that it still has residual racism that has continued
to be tolerated and not been properly addressed. There still must be a fair way to ensure
punishment is the same for all. A clear
example is how the three-strikes legislation is applied to drug offenders (dealers
and users) who deal powder cocaine as opposed to those who deal in crack
cocaine. A large portion of drug related
crime takes place in poverty stricken inner city and urban areas. If crack dealers relocated their trade to
gated communities, prep schools, Wall Street or suburbia, would the police
refocus the war on drugs to these areas?
It seems reasonable that police would focus their resources in areas
where crime has been reported to be ongoing. However, the disparity and bias shows up in
the charges and sentencing stage.
Another criticism of the three-strikes legislation is
that it has overburdened court and prison systems with cases and sentences that
incur staggering financial obligations and require the building and maintenance
of additional jails and prisons. The
main issue was that is unfairly targeted certain groups in society. Yes, everyone wants to feel safe in their homes,
neighborhoods and schools; perhaps that is why it has become acceptable to close
our eyes to the inequity that still exists. God forbid someone should imply that we want
crime to go unpunished; so there must be consequences. But should it be administered based on where
you live, economic status, or your ethnicity.
“Black men are imprisoned at the highest rate, 6.5 times higher than
White men, and 2.5 times higher than Hispanic men…Black women imprisonment rate
is nearly double the imprisonment rates of Hispanic women and three times the
rate if White women” (Samaha, 2011, pg. 21). If it does not apply to every individual equally,
it may be accepted as legal, but it cannot be considered as ethical.
References
Banks,
C. (2013). Criminal justice ethics. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, INC.
Samaha,
J. (2011). Criminal law. (10th ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning.
