Arguement Against Minimum Drug SentencingEssay Preview: Arguement Against Minimum Drug SentencingReport this essayArgument against mandatory minimum drug sentencingThere are many different argument both for and against mandatory minimum drug sentencing. However there are more arguments against mandatory minimum drug sentencing then there are for the support of the mandatory sentencing. One of the biggest arguments against mandatory minimum drug sentencing is that it was originally intended to target the higher level drug dealers but the majority of the cases have only been low level drug dealers. One of the other arguments is that will cause the jail systems to become overcrowded and that if is unfair.
The reason these laws were designed were to try to put an end to and capture more high level drug lords. The argument that many people are arguing is that the laws are actually targeting low level/ minor drug dealers on the street level and having them sent to prison for, potentially, their entire life. The problem with this is that the system is sending low level street dealers to prison with hardened criminals. What could happen here is that the criminal could go into prison as a low level, non-violent dealer and exit prison with the mentality of a more serious, violent criminal.
Another argument against mandatory minimum sentencing is the question of it being more cost effective then the previous method of dealing with high level drug dealers. A study at the Drug policy Research Center decided to look into this question when it comes to the drug Cocaine; which they believe to be the most troublesome drug in the United States. What they found was that “Mandatory minimum sentences are not justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing cocaine consumption or drug-related crime”. They found that mandatory minimum drug sentencing reduced cocaine use less per million taxpayer dollars then simply sending the high level drug dealers and heavy users through treatment programs.
It turns out that mandatory minimums have a lot to do with the fact that law enforcement agencies have fewer resources and resources to track and incarcerate these drug dealers and heavy users:
But when such a report comes in about high-level drug dealers and heavy users, I suspect many would get confused. The numbers are as follows:
The number of people arrested for drug possession and production within six months of arrest is a bit less than 1 person per 100,000 law enforcement agencies, compared to 1 person per 100,000 drug dealers. But because these drug dealers in Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and New York are so close on average to the federal minimum, these reports say, it’s easy to spot the disparity for low-level drug dealers, especially in large cities like New York.
But in Denver, where there is no law enforcement, or at least fewer law enforcement agencies willing to keep drug dealers, a very small percentage of these arrests occurred. That’s where the report came into question! A lot of law enforcement officials also knew that for a lot of these drug dealers to get themselves under the law for sale, it took days of driving, and a significant amount of law enforcement and legal staff time and resources. And that’s when they figured out they had some problem. They had no time for drug trafficking operations to develop. A lot of these dealers were, and seem to be, just waiting to find a way to get their hands on drugs without really being stopped.
The authors put an end to mandatory minimums when they made a few recommendations:
1) Reduce the number of criminal court-mandated drug court sessions using more resources so law enforcement can’t go after them more often. While most non-violent cases (under 2%) have not gone for much longer, there is some evidence that it actually matters more than 5-10 years. To increase this, law enforcement agencies can have a more proactive approach to trying to track and apprehend these drug abusers, for a lower cost. Specifically, if they are stopped or arrested more often, law enforcement agencies will be required to identify cases when these abusers are found to be in possession of at least 3 large quantities of cocaine, and at least 2 large quantities of heroin, crack, or marijuana, or those who are in possession of less than 1 quantity of alcohol (and for these traffickers, it really isn’t any more important than if they are under 18, and if they can get ahold of these illicit drugs the drug dealers will actually be able to sell them back to the traffickers for a reduced price).
There is an alternative to mandatory minimum sentencing:
2) Reduce the number of cases for sentencing for drug possession and production and for sentencing for drug trafficking. In both scenarios, the public knows more about the traffickers they are targeting than they