ExpertLaw.com Forums

The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
  • 09-21-2006, 07:30 PM
    njkaters
    The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums
    A look at the idea and judicial wisdom of mandatory minimums. What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with the premise of this article?

    Found at:
    http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_war_on_drugs

    Recently, independent candidate for governor of Texas Kinky Friedman came out for the legalization of marijuana in the Lone Star State. His rationalization for marijuana’s legalization has to do with his position on crime, notably that he wants to keep minor drug offenders out of jail while putting more serious criminals (rapists, murders, pedophiles) in jail. Friedman is not the first candidate to come out for marijuana’s legalization and certainly independent and third party candidates have long promoted rehabilitation over punishment when it comes to minor drug offenses. However, Friedman’s rationalization makes for a good starting point to renewing America’s discussion about the war on drugs, which has by most accounts failed.

    Perhaps the most criticized tool of the war on drugs in America is the idea of mandatory minimums, or proscribe minimum jail sentences for those who are found to use or distribute drugs. The idea behind mandatory minimums, advocated by conservative Republicans and socially conservative Democrats, is that it forces judges to enforce narcotics laws which might be given more subjective treatment on a case-by-case basis. However, many reports and studies have shown that mandatory minimums affect minority offenders far more than white offenders. One study by Harvard professor William Brownsberger showed that mandatory minimums disproportionately were applied to users of crack cocaine, which is used in greater numbers by African American males than any other racial group.

    From a constitutional and judicial standpoint, mandatory minimums hardly make sense. The most compelling constitutional argument against mandatory minimums is the use of the Eight Amendment clause preventing “cruel and unusual punishment.” This provision is certainly subjective but on a spectrum between law abiding citizens and murderers, someone who uses drugs in the privacy of their homes and commits no other crime seems pretty insignificant. Therefore, the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines imposed upon judges forces them into a decision that violates the Eighth Amendment. As well, the passage of laws by state legislatures and Congress have been subject to the interpretation of the judicial branch throughout American history. While mandatory minimum laws provide clear cut legal guidelines for judges, it ends up the discretion of the presiding judge how to sentence (or not sentence) plaintiffs before their court.
  • 09-23-2006, 12:53 PM
    Mr. Knowitall
    Re: The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums
    It's great to opine that mandatory minimums are unconstitutional, but I'm not aware of any state or federal jurisdiction which agrees with that.
  • 09-24-2006, 05:29 PM
    njkaters
    Re: The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums
    That is what we are here for, to opine. There may not be a lot of popular sentiment or judicial thought about mandatory minimums, but that doesn't make it right or totally legal. Some things slip through the cracks, even in a litigious culture like ours...
  • 09-24-2006, 05:54 PM
    Mr. Knowitall
    Re: The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums
    Is that what we're here for? Somehow I got confused and thought we were here to promote our articles hosted at suite101.com. ;)
  • 09-26-2006, 09:59 AM
    njkaters
    Re: The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums
    Not sure what your point is, Know-it All, but you seem to be picking a fight that isn't necessary. Debate the Issues is the title of this forum, correct? It seems that you don't want people to have opinions or interpretations, which would make this forum useless. You submitted your opinion, I submitted mine, and that is that. I feel that the article I wrote for Suite101 warrants discussion and you can choose to participate or stay quiet.
  • 09-26-2006, 10:07 AM
    aaron
    Re: The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums
    If you don't like that people perceive you as spamming, perhaps you should post the articles and not the links. Otherwise, you can expect that perception to continue, and to occasionally inspire comments.
  • 09-26-2006, 10:19 AM
    njkaters
    Re: The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums
    That is the entire article...its a brief piece and the link will take you there if you want to take a look at other law pieces or more in the general Social Issues page. Point taken, but the article is there and the fact that I am responding to all comments should indicate that I am not spamming.

    We seemed to have gotten off topic, by the way...the reason why mandatory minimums have not been actively fought against in court is that the people who are caught under these laws are poor or are unable to get representation that can just focus on their case. Saying that mandatory minimums are good because no one challenges them is a weak argument. Trust me, lots of middle class and upper class people are doing drugs and they don't get the same treatment.
  • 11-29-2006, 03:56 PM
    foreclosurefish
    Re: The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums
    Since prisons are owned and managed by private interests, and stock prices rise as more individuals are put into prison, there is a valid economic reason to have mandatory minimums. Not to mention the fact that most drug money is laundered into the US economy through the use of correspondent banking. Would you rather a huge drop in your stocks and retirement accounts, or would you rather have drugs being used or offered to your children?

    This issue of mandatory minimum sentences is especially relevant for War on Drugs related cases, as so many people are caught using these drugs. Mandatory minimums will make sure they are all put in jail for a minimum length of time, eliminating the possibility of staying out of jail, no matter how minor the infraction.

    A lot of news articles are posted online with information on the issue of drugs, prisons, and politics, but a re-examination in mainstream media would be a welcome topic at this point. We seem to throw more and more money at this "War on Drugs" with the only result being more and more drugs.
  • 12-21-2006, 12:07 PM
    DumbTurkey
    Re: The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums
    Quote:

    Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    It's great to opine that mandatory minimums are unconstitutional, but I'm not aware of any state or federal jurisdiction which agrees with that.

    For someone who knows it all, you sure don't say much. ;)

    There are countless blatantly unconstitutional laws in my opinion. Obviously the courts have disagreed with my opinions OR perhaps nobody has ever taken these issues to court.

    For example, swearing oath by placing one's hand on a Bible violates not only the Separation clause, it also violates the very words in the Bible itself telling us not to take oaths! It's really quite hilarious to see how idiotic we are as a species through such examples.

    The War on Drugs is another classic example of human stupidity, indeed! But it has been debated to death and most voters don't like to think and they don't watch intelligent documentaries or listen to reason, so we're probably stuck with these idiotic laws for the foreseeable future.

    Mandatory minimums, I think, fall into the category of "politically untouchable" because anyone voting against them is perceived as being "soft on crime" or the "looney Left" and other such brilliant labels devised by the Right to control language and political discourse.
  • 12-21-2006, 04:52 PM
    Mr. Knowitall
    Re: The War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums
    Quote:

    Quoting DumbTurkey
    View Post
    For example, swearing oath by placing one's hand on a Bible violates not only the Separation clause, it also violates the very words in the Bible itself telling us not to take oaths! It's really quite hilarious to see how idiotic we are as a species through such examples.

    In many jurisdictions you are sworn in without any holy book present. In those which use a holy book you should be given the option of substituting the holy book of your choice, or taking the oath without a holy book. So, bad example.

    Quote:

    Quoting DumbTurkey
    The War on Drugs is another classic example of human stupidity, indeed! But it has been debated to death and most voters don't like to think and they don't watch intelligent documentaries or listen to reason, so we're probably stuck with these idiotic laws for the foreseeable future.

    That's a public policy argument. What does it have to do with constitutionality?
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved