| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "MANDATORY SENTENCING": |
|
|
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, 2002.
An examination of the principles behind mandatory minimum sentencing.
989 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the issues concerning mandatory minimum sentencing, created by politicians convinced that crime was out of control. It looks at how the public wanted something done and that one aspect of the problem was that judges were exercising too much discretion and not sending enough people to prison for a long enough period of time. It discusses how mandatory minimum sentencing began as a tool in the drug war in 1986 when House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. ordered his Democratic committee chairmen to produce a crime bill that toughened penalties on drug dealers.
From the Paper
"There is considerable public support for the idea that criminals need to be given harsher punishment and almost none for the idea that some other means should be taken to reduce crime. Those concerned about crime can point to a number of statistical studies to show that crime is increasing and is not being punished at the level the public would prefer. A National Punishment Survey conducted by the Population and Society Research Center at Bowling Green State University in 1987 showed that the public recommends prison sentences for a variety of violent and other serious crimes that would be approximately three times longer than offenders actually serve."
| |
|
Mandatory Sentencing, 2004.
A discussion of mandatory sentencing, its effect on the criminals and society in general.
3,653 words (approx. 14.6 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper deals with the mandatory sentencing guidelines and how they relate to the overcrowding that is taking place in prisons today. There is a distinct correlation between these two issues, which must be explored in order to determine what should be done about it and how the overcrowding in prisons can be alleviated, while still ensuring that criminals are punished according to the severity of their crimes. The first section includes a literature review, where seven scholarly sources are looked at in order to discuss the problems that come from prison overcrowding and what the sentencing guidelines mean for this.
From the Paper
"Naturally, the government is desirous of removing drug dealers and other criminals from the streets and undercover operations are often undertaken in the war on drugs in order to remove many of these undesirable individuals from society (Heaney, 161). Unfortunately, this necessitates undercover operations and there is often an amount of discretionary power that is just considered to be enormous when looked at realistically (Heaney, 161). Government agents have complete and total control over how long a particular drug operation lasts, who is targeted for it, and the amount of drugs that may or may not be involved in a particular transaction (Heaney, 161). Because this level of authority is so very high there is a strong risk of abusing it."
| |
|
The Three Strikes Mandatory Sentencing Law, 2004.
This paper reviews arguments against the efficacy of the three strikes mandatory sentencing law.
1,630 words (approx. 6.5 pages), 5 sources, APA, £ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that three strikes legislation mandates specific consequences when someone is classified as a habitual offender by having three strikes, convictions for a serious or violent felony crime. The author points out that the ideology behind three strikes laws is that criminals are guided by the expected utility principle theory, which states that the costs of their crime outweigh the benefits. The paper relates that the general goal of a three strikes law is to make punishment severe for repeat offenders in hopes that this will deter them from committing additional crimes and that, if they still choose to commit crimes, locking them up for 25 years to life is an effective means of incapacitation. The author underscores that the deterrence ability of three strikes laws is not accepted by many researchers and that this law has numerous negative side effects including increased homicide rates and prison overcrowding.
From the Paper
"The federal version of the three strikes law is the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, also known as the Federal Crime Bill, which was enacted by Congress in 1994. According to Schichor, the act mandates life in prison for criminals convicted of three violent felonies or drug offenses if the third conviction is a federal crime. In addition to the federal law, in a three year span from 1993 to 1996, 25 states adopted their own three strikes laws. Schichor (1997) believes this shift in criminal justice policy focuses more on "controlling aggregates instead of individual offenders" by sorting criminals into groups such as high rate offender and career criminal."
| |
|
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, 2004.
This paper examines the need for politicians to get tough on crime.
2,917 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 16 sources, MLA, £ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer of this paper suggests that the solution to the problem of increased crime statistics is to do away with mandatory minimum sentencing and promote get-tough-on-crime measures by focusing on violent crime. The paper discusses how evidence laws should be tightened in cases of ?conspiracy? to prevent the abuse of the system and rewarding upper-level dealers at the expense of the low-level dealer or associate. People should also be made aware of the reality of mandatory minimum sentencing.
From the Paper
"One hears a lot of talk nowadays about how politicians are getting tough on crime. The national prison population as a percentage of the total population is in America higher than in any other country. Currently about 2 million people are in jail. 10% of all men in America, and a third of all black men, will be incarcerated at some point. To defeat this trend, states such as Oregon often consider ?get soft on crime? measures that cut back sentencing for serious offenders such as murderers and rapists. We regularly hear of murderers and psychotic child molesters serving only a couple years before being released. Murders, we are told, have to be released after only five or ten years because there simply isn?t enough room to hold all of them. The average sentence served (in 1995) for rape and homicide was between five and six years; more minor crimes like robbery averaged under four years. So why are our jails so full, and are there really that many murderers? The answer, of course, lies in the fact that well over a third of the prison population consists of non-violent drug offenders serving minimum sentences. For example, the mandatory minimum sentence for ?conspiracy? to sell drugs (even if no drugs were ever directly found on the offender) is ten or twenty years depending on the amount of drugs alleged to be involved. Unlike other categories of crime, since conspiracy is a crime of intention rather than commission, no physical evidence is necessary and hear-say allegations are sufficient for conviction. Serving minimum sentences without parole, the average drug offender will stay in prison twice as long as the average murderer. Minimum mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenders impose draconian sentences on non-violent low-level offenders, filling the jails and creating pressure to release violent offenders, while removing power of discretion from judges to assure that the crime and sentence are in proportion."
| |
|
Mandatory Sentencing in Australia, 2002.
A look at the history of manadatory sentencing in Australia.
2,650 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 4 sources, £ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper gives an account of the history of mandatory sentencing in Australia. The paper also explains what lessons can be learned from this history.
| |
|
Mandatory Minimum Sentences., 2002.
Questions whether mandatory minimum sentences help or hinder the justice system.
2,150 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 4 sources, £ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for certain criminal offenses and whether these guidelines help or hinder justice.
| |
|
Canadian Mandatory Minimum Sentences, 2007.
This paper discuses the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) in Canada.
910 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, APA, £ 22.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that mandatory minimum sentencing (MMS) rests on aims of deterrence and of incapacitation so that a lawbreaker, who is likely to repeat an offense, is removed as a risk to the public. The author points out that critics of the criminal justice system indicate that, without MMS, immense discrepancies regarding punishment assigned for the same offenses by different parties would exist. The paper also relates that, under MMS, a judge, who is able to discern an irregular circumstance related to a crime, is no longer free to adjust what he or she hands down to an offender. The author concludes that, in Canada, at present, perhaps the strongest argument against MMS is the inadequacy of prison resources and community support services, which would be overloaded because MMS would involve more offenders being assigned to prisons.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Minimum Sentencing in Canada
Defects in Minimum Sentencing
Concluding Remarks
From the Paper
"Gabor & Crutcher noted how the existence of minimum penalties for an array of crimes to an extent simplifies court proceedings towards reduced court costs, but that these are more than realized in the prison system where many timeservers now incarcerated for minimum sentences. Another factor to be kept in mind is the mentality of a serious offender who may not resent serving prison time as much as he or she may be more adverse to community sentences involving instructions, conditions and probation supervision."
| |
|
Gun Laws and Mandatory Sentencing, 2006.
An analysis of the effect that the 10-20-life law in Florida will have on gun crimes.
5,248 words (approx. 21.0 pages), 48 sources, MLA, £ 90.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses gun laws in Florida, particularly the 10-20-life law that has been passed. The research hypothesizes that juvenile offenders within Alachua county will be unaffected by the 10-20-life advertising campaigns and that the majority of youth offenders surveyed will not grasp the severity of punishments for crimes committed with guns.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Literature Review
From the Paper
"While mandatory minimum sentences, such as Florida's 10-20-life law, are currently popular across the nation that has not always been the case. Such policies first were put into practice in the 1950s and after a substantial period when they fell out of favor came back into style in the 1980s (Yates, 2001). The motivation for most of these laws has been based on the desire of politicians, prosecutors and the general public to be 'tough on crime.' Mandatory minimum sentencing had its true rebirth in 1984, when Congress passed the "Sentencing Reform Act" to establish the U.S. Sentencing Commission (H.R. 6428) and followed that with the passage of the "Armed Career Criminal Act." That law established mandatory 15-year prison sentences for certain armed offenses (U.S.C. 3551)."
| |
|
Sentencing for Drug Crimes, 2002.
This paper discusses whether or not drug crimes should carry mandatory sentencing.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 8 sources, £ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores congressional testimony to determine whether not mandatory sentences for drug crimes should occur.
| |
|
Federal Drug Offenders' Sentencing Guidelines, 2005.
This paper argues against mandatory minimum sentencing federal guidelines for drug offenders.
2,455 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 21 sources, MLA, £ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the high federal prison rate, resulting in the overcrowding of federal prisons, is caused by the long, unjust and ineffective sentences required by the federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. The author points out that re-instituting federal parole or instituting programs similar to the programs of the state drug courts would help reconcile the issue of the ever increasing prison population and the related ever increasing cost. The paper recommends federal parole, which would allow inmates to be released from prison earlier than their imposed sentence with very specific rules to abide-by overseen by a parole officer, and required drug treatment for addicts.
From the Paper
"Drug laws were first enacted in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Act, which taxed narcotics and required those who dispensed drugs to obtain a license. The Harrison Narcotics Act specifically targeted the growing number of opiate addicts in the United States after the Civil War. The sale of opium and cocaine were regulated, and later the prohibition of production and importation of heroin were all included in this Act. In 1937, marijuana was characterized as a narcotic, and was taxed and legislated by the Marijuana Tax Act. The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 introduced the first law requiring mandatory prison sentences for using and selling illegal substances."
| |
|
Mandatory Minimums: The Solution?, 2001.
An argumentative paper about drug sentencing. A paper that argues why mandatory minimum drug sentencing does not work as a tactic in the so-called "war on drugs," with quotes, facts, and stories of the convicted.
890 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, £ 21.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A paper that argues why mandatory minimum drug sentencing does not work as a tactic in the so-called "war on drugs," with quotes, facts, and stories of the convicted.
From the Paper
"Our judicial system is set up so that one is innocent until proven guilty, and so that the punishment fits the crime. This is part of why many view America as the greatest democracy on earth: our laws and punishments, in comparison to some other countries, seem fair and humane. One would think, then, that a convicted rapist or murderer would spend more time in prison than a first-time drug offender charged with dealing a small amount of marijuana, for example. Naturally, right? Not so fast--today?s ?mandatory minimum? laws, designed to be harsh on all drug offenders, are putting people behind bars for a long time. Spawned by the United States? ?War on Drugs,? these laws leave judges with little choice when sentencing drug offenders, with mandatory minimum sentences for all drug offenders. These laws target everyone from small-scale pot dealers whose clientele consists only of a few friends, to large-scale heroin gangsters. These laws intend to scare drug offenders with a ?no tolerance? policy, which, in theory, is a good idea. However, many are asking the question: is this really the most just and effective way of eradicating our country?s drug problem?"
| |
|
Topics in Criminology, 2008.
This paper discuses four topics in criminology: minimum mandatory sentencing (MMS), a security-minded culture, conditional sentencing and the rational choice theory.
3,585 words (approx. 14.3 pages), 4 sources, APA, £ 69.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that minimum mandatory sentencing (MMS) does not effectively induce incapacitation nor does it really deter perpetrators. The author points out that routine precautions against crime create a security-minded culture of distance meaning that the criminal as a person is demonized and seen as belonging to a very different human category. The paper suggests that the unknowing public of Canada may strongly support the federal government's decision to eliminate conditional sentencing and expand the range of serious crimes to which MMS minimum mandatory sentencing apply; however, they do not understand that comparable adjustments in the United States have not reduced crime rates. The author stresses that rational choice theory does not address individuals who are not truly capable of rationality and thus can not make choices based on sound, rational decision.
Table of Contents
Minimum Mandatory Sentencing (MMS)
A Security-Minded Culture
Conditional Sentence
The Rational Choice Theory
From the Paper
"The St. Lawrence Mental Health facility in Ontario is typical of a number of institutions now serving mentally ill medium and maximum security offenders. There are not enough facilities of the kind to serve the mainly federal offenders who would benefit from transfers allowing them to have comprehensive psychiatric care, towards partial or full recovery, as part of their federal sentences. It is plain that many Western countries are seeing persons who are mentally ill rather lost in the criminal justice system as opposed to hospital or other remedial systems."
| |
|
Criminal Sentencing in America, 2002.
Looks at the different approaches taken by law enforcement agencies to determine criminal sentences.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 5 sources, £ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The way criminals are sentenced in America depends largely on crime rates, theories on how to deter crime, and the degree to which the public feels threatened by crime. Historically, various approaches to sentencing have been taken. This paper traces approaches used since World War II and shows how mandatory drug sentences, three-strike laws, and truth-in-sentencing have filled the prisons but more often with individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses than violent criminals.
| |
|
Cocaine Crime Sentencing, 2005.
A comparative analysis of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine sentencing disparities.
6,800 words (approx. 27.2 pages), 30 sources, APA, £ 106.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
After a decade of contentious debate regarding the federal sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, a number of significant initiatives to reform current policy have recently emerged. These include legislation introduced in Congress and a series of hearings resulting in recommendations by the United States Sentencing Commission. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the sentencing disparities with regard to crack cocaine as compared to powder cocaine. It examines the development of federal legislation creating greater criminal penalties for crack cocaine than powder cocaine and assesses recent developments, studies, and research in an effort to resolve the sentencing disparities. Finally, it offers recommendations to resolve this sentencing issue for future legislation, law enforcement agencies, and federal and local governments.
Paper Outline
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background of Cocaine
Statement of the Problem
Impact of Disparity in Sentencing
Demographic Profile of Federal Cocaine Offenders
Operational Assumptions
Statistical Analysis
Significance of the Research
Review of Related Literature
Recommendations and Hypothesis
Proposed Methodology
Proposed Data Collection
Research Findings
Results
Recommendations
Conclusion
Bibliography
From the Paper
"A possible question for policy makers is whether the career offender guideline, especially as it applies to repeat drug traffickers, clearly promotes an important purpose of sentencing. Unlike repeat violent offenders, whose incapacitation may protect the public from additional crimes by the offender, criminologists and law enforcement officials have noted that retail-level drug traffickers are readily replaced by new drug sellers so long as the demand for a drug remains high. Incapacitating a low-level drug seller prevents little, if any, drug selling; the crime is simply committed by someone else."
|
|
|
