November 30th, 2017
Written by - Olivia Savona '19
According to Molly M. Gill, the director of Special and Legal Projects for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, created in 1991 to repeal mandatory minimum sentences at the state and federal level, “these one-size-fits-all sentencing statutes that were intended to deter crime and punish big-time criminals often backfire”, as they give drug addicts and small-time offenders enormous sentences. This is a an ongoing human rights violation, that targets people for their race and degenerates the fundamental foundations of our justice system.
Mandatory Minimum is racist because the justice system in the United States is racist, a racist artifact of the war on drugs. Crack and cocaine may be nearly identical on a molecular level, people who are charged with possession of just 1 gram of crack are given the same sentence as those found in possession of 18 grams of cocaine. This believe it or not is an improvement due to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, before then, a person could be charged the same for 1 gram of crack would receive the same sentence as someone with 100 grams of cocaine. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, no drug is more racially skewed than crack. The report that was conducted in 2010 found that 79% of 6000 sentenced crack offenders in 2009 were black. This is simply because crack is also much easier to produce and distribute, making it prevalent in poor, urban neighborhoods.The average prison time for crack cocaine is 115 months, and with the clear racial divide in the usage of crack, because of all this it is no surprise that African Americans spend more time in the racial justice system than white Americans.
The mandatory minimum sentencing also disregards a case’s individuality while it is being judged. Instead of considering all the circumstances of the crime and the individual offender, the court must impose a lengthy predetermined sentence created by a legislature that knows nothing about the particulars of the offense or the defendant. This allows for judges to fail to account for the nature of the crime or the offender’s mental state, criminal history, or role in the offense, essential factors in determining how much punishment is deserved.
While the Supreme Court has not budged from its position in Lockyer v. Andrade of 2003 upholding a mandatory minimum sentence, but increasing numbers of jurists, advocates, and policymakers are realizing that justice is only served when the punishment fits the crime.
Comments