Unnecessary rules and regulations is what have become of the required minimum sentencing laws. Laws that are put intact so that Congress might have control over what happens with a convict in the judiciary court system. It is essential that these laws are dealt away with; they are creating greater harms than benefits for the public. They are costing the American people from their money, abstinence from their families, and to some extent even rights as U.S. citizens. The United States Congress should repeal mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
“A mandatory term stipulates a minimum sentence that includes imprisonment and mandates that this sentence cannot be suspended and probation cannot be granted” (Schlesinger, 2011, p.64). These required laws …show more content…
This is why there are overcrowded prison systems in the U.S. An example of an exaggerated sentencing, which is the cause of overflowing prisons, is that when Kemba Smith Pradia what sentenced to twenty-four and a half years in federal prison for her involvement as a drug mule in a violent cocaine ring. “Smith's ‘nightmare’ was a case of a promising college student who became a poster child for the failures of a hastily written federal mandatory minimum drug sentencing law” (Stuart, 2010, p.10). Her story is a clear advocate for how poorly these minimum mandatory sentencing laws are written out, so badly that President Bill Clinton commuted Pradia’s sentencing to only the six and a half years she already served. Some people are okay with overflowing prisons as long as the streets have a safe feel to them, because those criminals are incapable of committing crimes behind bars and thereby it protects the public. Less crime rate happens when certain severe punishments are placed out there which creates a deterrent effect. A solution could be probation, giving small time criminals certain restrictions before sending them off to prison, to get themselves together. Also place those that our in prison because of the mandatory minimum onto parole. Which is very restricted, so the community will still have a safe feel to it even after the releases from jails and …show more content…
Prosecutors for the state have the best advantage of winning their case and sending the suspect to jail. The constitution states that all American citizens have the right to a fair trial and to be judged by a jury of their peers. But how is this possible to happen when prosecutors get to threaten defendants who want to exercise their rights at a trial with longer sentences, if defendant were not to win the case. With the prosecution holding the power to do this most felons become scared and do not take the risk and instead takes the guilty plea offered to them. This type of intimidation should not be able to done, because it is defying the rights of the defendant. There is nothing that can be done about this though because it is technically inside of the law prosecutors have the legal right to get away with it. Many may argue that it is ok with them that the prosecution’s are able to play such a dirty game. That if the defendants would have just stayed on the straight on narrow and be regular citizen in society then they would not have to play games with the devil and gamble away with their years of freedom. That if people followed the laws there would be no reason for this argument in what the prosecution can and cannot do. In solving this problem the prosecutor has all the total power unless Congress changes the laws. It is up to the prosecutor to morally