Abstract
Mandatory Sentencing takes away the benefit of considering the circumstances involved when arriving at the sentence against the specific crime. This article discusses the disadvantages of “Mandatory Sentencing” on the basis of “Mandatory Sentencing” beating the very purpose of Justice, “Mandatory Sentencing” prevents rehabilitation of Prisoners by denying Parole and the financial impact on state and families of offenders undergoing “Mandatory Sentencing”
Keywords: Mandatory Sentencing, Probation, and Special category offenders.
Justice is defined as the proper administration of the law, the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law. The very objective of “Justice” is punishment, rehabilitation and not to keep the prisons cramped with criminals.
Mandatory Sentencing may mistakenly appear to be according to the tenets of the law, prescribing pre defined sentences to specific crimes and removing any bias involved in assessment of the case.
It is well accepted that every human being is the product of circumstances. The very concept of Justice entails consideration of circumstances involved and the evaluation of reasons for committing the crime before according the sentence. One size fits all, in law, generally means punishment does not fit the crime. Mandatory Sentences are enacted by legislators who have neither ever seen the offender nor are they aware of the extent of involvement of the accused. There are many different reasons why people commit crimes but “Mandatory Sentencing” does not differentiate between individuals.
Process of justice has to be holistic in approach and should not be made too mechanical wherein human wisdom has little role to play.”Mandatory Sentencing” ties the hands of the judges as they are required to award sentences pre decided for special category offenders. This makes “Mandatory Sentences” arbitrary and harsh in nature. I am of the belief that this empowerment of Judges, to consider the overall picture and use discretionary powers to arrive at tailor made sentences specific to each individual case, should not be taken away from them. Let us have faith in the judges to be fair in their judgenment.
Consider the case of an individual who is unaware of “Minimum Sentencing” for the crime he has committed (such cases are very common as most criminals do not have adequate knowledge of laws and neither are they well read). This individual would always carry the opinion that “Injustice” instead of “Justice” has been done to him as according to him he will be in prison for longer period of time than what he deserved for the crime committed by him.
As can be clearly seen, “Mandatory Sentencing” serves only one objective of Justice namely “Punishment” but the broader goals of rehabilitation and not keeping the prisons cramped with criminals takes a beating.
Parole “ An opportunity to rehabilitate criminals
“Mandatory sentencing” deprives the offenders to make use of the opportunity of Parole to prove that these offenders can be successfully rehabilitated. Criminals granted paroles, under the supervision of Probation officer, have the chance to prove their desire to assimilate in society.
Efforts in the right direction of the Probation Officer coupled with genuine need of criminal to assimilate in the normal society can have far reaching impact.
“But it is also true that ‘having a talk’ can be incredibly powerful, and indeed have a long term beneficial effect”( Bridges,July 2009, The Challenges Facing Probation )
One may doubt that criminals during parole can again commit crimes and the “nay Sayers” would propagate that it is best to keep prisoners locked up.
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Compassionate Release Program April 2013 I-2013-006, pg 4 “the general recidivism rate for federal prisoners has been estimated to be as high as 41 percent.” It can be concluded from this that a good 59 percent prisoners do not recidivate.
Special Category Offenders undergoing “Mandatory Sentencing” are deprived Probation and a chance to rehabilitate. We also need to bear in mind that after serving the “Mandatory Sentence” , without any parole , when the prisoner gets out, he may find the world so changed that it becomes impossible to survive and the prisoner is left with no choice but to fall back to conducting crime.
Since “Mandatory Sentencing” prevents Parole, in the long run, this aspect of “Mandatory Sentencing” does not deter but instead encourages crimes.
Financial Impact : State and Family
Imprisoning offenders under “Mandatory Sentencing” for extended period not only increases the prison population, it puts a financial strain on the state as well. The immediate impact is expenses incurred on the imprisoned offender but in the bigger picture, generally the family of the offender has also to be taken care of by the state.
Moreover the offenders imprisoned under “Mandatory Sentencing” are, more often than not, the bread winners of the family. Chances are that the families of such offenders, to escape financial crisis imposed upon them, may turn to crime.
Conclusion
Mandatory Sentencing could have had very noble and unbiased beginnings but a deeper assessment of implications of Mandatory Sentencing on the Special Category Offenders clearly establishes that “Mandatory Sentencing” does not act as deterrent for some crimes instead “Mandatory Sentencing” may lead to an increase in crimes. It is not the severity of punishment but the certainty of arrest and punishment which acts as a deterrent.
