Jump to content

Mandatory sentencing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criminal procedure
Criminal trials and convictions
Rights of the accused
Verdict
Sentencing
Post-sentencing
Related areas of law
Portals

Mandatory sentencing requires that people convicted of crimes serve a predefined term of imprisonment, commonly serious or violent offenses, removing the discretion of judges to take issues such as extenuating circumstances into consideration when sentencing. Research shows the discretion of sentencing is instead shifted to prosecutors. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

Mandatory sentences are considered a "tough on crime" approach that intend to serve as a general deterrence for potential criminals and repeat offenders, who are expected to avoid crime because they can be certain of their sentence if they are caught.[1] However, studies have shown that the effects of mandatory sentencing are mixed, and that in some cases they actually increase crime. Mandatory sentencing is not cost-effective compared to other methods of reducing crime. In the United States, several mandatory sentencing laws have been overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States for being unconstitutional, and mandatory sentencing has resulted in prison terms that are considered extremely disproportionate compared to the crimes committed.

History

[edit]

North America

[edit]

Throughout US history, prison sentences were primarily founded upon discretionary sentencing. Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1951.[2] The act made a first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses.[3] With the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Congress enacted mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including marijuana, with 205 years for a first offence and 5-10 years for a second.[4][5] The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 also implemented mandatory sentencing for offences related to cocaine.[6] In 1994, Safety Valve laws were created to reduce mandatory sentencing for for certain nonviolent, non-managerial drug offenders with little or no criminal history.[7]

Individual states in the US can have mandatory sentences. In 1994, California introduced a three-strikes law, which imposed a mandatory term of life-imprisonment for a third felony conviction. The Three strikes law was intended to reduce crime by implementing extended sentencing to deter repeated offenders.[8] However, the laws have created cases where sentences are considered extremely disproportionate to the crimes committed. For example, Santos Reyes was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 29 years after he was convicted of perjury in relation to cheating on his drivers licence test in 1997. Reyes had previous convictions for burglary and armed robbery more than 11 years earlier, making the perjury charge his third strike.[9] Other examples include Curtis Roberts, who was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 50 years for three-non violent thefts which combined only obtained $116.[10]

Following their implementation in California, three-strike laws were subsequently adopted in many American jurisdictions. The state of Florida has a very strict minimum sentencing policy known as 10-20-Life, which includes the following minimums: 10 years' imprisonment for using a gun during a crime, 20 years' imprisonment for firing a gun during a crime, and 25 years' imprisonment in addition to any other sentence for shooting somebody, regardless of whether they survive or not.[11]

Separate from each state's own courts, federal courts in the United States are guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.[1][12][13] When a guideline sentencing range is less than the statutory mandatory minimum, the latter prevails. Under the Controlled Substances Act, prosecutors have great power to influence a defendant's sentence and thereby create incentives for defendants to accept a plea agreement. For example, defendants with prior drug felonies are often subject to harsh mandatory minimums, but a prosecutor can exercise discretion to not file a prior felony information. Then the mandatory minimum will not be applied.[14] United States federal juries are generally not allowed to be informed of the mandatory minimum penalties that may apply if the accused is convicted because the jury's role is limited to a determination of guilt or innocence.[15] However, defense attorneys sometimes have found ways to impart this information to juries; for instance, it is occasionally possible, on cross-examination of an informant who faced similar charges, to ask how much time he was facing. It is sometimes deemed permissible because it is a means of impeaching the witness. However, in at least one state court case in Idaho, it was deemed impermissible.[16]

In 2013, United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. announced that the Justice Department would follow a new policy restricting mandatory minimum sentences in certain drug cases. Prosecutions dropped, drug enforcement agent morale dropped, and fentanyl and heroin overdoses soared, reported The Washington Post in 2019.[17] In Alleyne v. United States (2013) the Supreme Court held that increasing a sentence past the mandatory minimum requirement must be submitted by a jury and found factual beyond a reasonable doubt. It increases the burden on the prosecutor to show that the sentence is necessary for the individual crime by requiring that a mandatory minimum sentence be denied for a defendant unless they fulfill certain criteria. Attorney General Holder held that the charges placed on an individual should reflect the uniqueness of the case and consideration in assessing and fairly representing his/her given conduct. This purpose is to prevent recidivism.[18]

Some mandatory sentences have been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1976, mandatory death sentences were determined to be unconstitutional, following the decision in Woodson v. North Carolina.[19] In 2005, United States v. Booker found that mandatory federal sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. This resulted in the guidelines becoming advisory rather than mandatory.[20] In 2010, the case of Graham v. Florida ruled it is unconstitutional to sentence people under 18 to mandatory life-imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses.[21]

Mandatory sentencing in the US is more likely to affect minority groups. In US federal prisons, Black Americans sentenced under mandatory minimum drug laws grew from under 10% in 1984 to 28% by 1990, representing a significantly larger shift than found in the federal prison population in general.[22] As of 2011, of the people convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum punishment and who remained subject to that penalty at sentencing, 38.5 percent were Black, 31.8 percent were Hispanic, and 27.5 percent were White.[23]

In Canada, life imprisonment is mandatory for murder if committed, at the time of the offence, as an adult. Parole ineligibility periods vary but are not less than 7 years. Until 1961, murder in Canada was punishable only by death, provided that the offender was a sane adult.[24]

Europe

[edit]

Denmark has mandatory minimum sentences for murder (five years to life) and regicide (life in prison § 115), deadly arson is punished with imprisonment from 4 years to life, and for an illegal loaded gun one year in state prison.[25]

In Germany, murder for pleasure, sexual gratification, greed or other base motives, by stealth or cruelly or by means that pose a danger to the public or to facilitate or cover up another offense is mandatorily punished by life imprisonment.[26]

In Ireland, Acts of the Oireachtas specify a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder and treason, and mandatory minimum sentences for various lesser offences.[27] A mandatory minimum sentence may be truly mandatory or may be presumptive, giving a judge discretion to impose a lesser sentence in exceptional circumstances.[27] Mandatory sentences have been challenged on grounds that they violate the separation of powers required by the constitution, by allowing the Oireachtas (legislature) to interfere in the judicial process.[27] In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder was constitutional.[28][27] However, in 2019, it ruled that a mandatory minimum sentence had to apply for all offenders, not for certain classes of offenders. It struck out a sentence of five years for possession of a firearm, because it was truly mandatory only for a second offence, whereas it would have been presumptively mandatory for a first offence.[29][27] A mandatory sentence for a second offence of drug trafficking was struck out in 2021 for similar reasons; the conviction was upheld but the sentence referred back to the Circuit Court for reconsideration.[30]

In the United Kingdom, upon conviction for murder, the court must sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. The law requires that courts must set a minimum term before they become eligible for parole. For this purpose five "starting points" are in place that give guidance to a judge to impose a sentence in each different case of murder. These range from 12 years' imprisonment for cases of murder committed by a person under 18, to a whole life order, in cases that involve such "exceptionally" high aggravating factors, such as the murder of two or more persons, or the murder of a child following abduction or with sexual/sadistic motivation.[31] The United Kingdom also has three other mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, namely: a minimum of 7 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of trafficking, supplying or producing Class A drugs for the third or subsequent time; a minimum of 5 years' imprisonment (for a person over 18) or 3 years' imprisonment (for a person aged 16–17) for possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, transfer or sale of a prohibited firearm or weapon for the first or subsequent time; and a minimum of 3 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of a domestic burglary for the third or subsequent time.[32]

A "three strikes" policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory life sentence on a conviction for a second "serious" violent or sexual offence (i.e. "two strikes" law), a minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offence involving a class A drug, and a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for those convicted for the third time of burglary. An amendment by the Labour opposition established that mandatory sentences should not be imposed if the judge considered it unjust.[33] According to figures released by the British government in 2005, just three drug dealers and eight burglars received mandatory sentences in the next seven years, because judges thought a longer sentence was unjust in all other drug and burglary cases where the defendant was found guilty. However, in 2005 a new "two strikes" law became effective, requiring courts to presume that a criminal who commits his second violent or dangerous offence deserves a life sentence unless the judge is satisfied that the defendant is not a danger to the public.[34] This resulted in far more life sentences than the 1997 legislation. In response to prison overcrowding, the law was changed in 2008 to reduce the number of such sentences being passed, by restoring judicial discretion and abolishing the presumption that a repeat offender is dangerous.

Oceania

[edit]

In 1996, 12-month mandatory sentencing laws around third offence home burglary were introduced by Western Australia through amendments to the 1913 Criminal Code.[35] In 1997, mandatory "three strikes" laws were introduced for property offences in the Northern Territory, which raised incarceration rates of Indigenous women by 223% in the first year.[35][36] The mandatory sentencing laws caused controversy[37] and sparked debate due to the laws discriminative impacts on Indigenous Australians.[38] Property crime actually increased after the mandatory sentencing law was introduced, and decreased after it was repealed.[39]

A mandatory minimum sentence in Victoria for driving without a licence was abolished in 2010 after it was found to have no impact on reducing crime or protecting the community, though was found to increase strain on the criminal justice system.[40]

New South Wales has two mandatory sentences. The Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2011 introduced mandatory life sentence without parole for a person convicted of murdering a police officer.[41] Also, the Crimes and Other Legislation (Assault and Intoxication) Amendment 2014 introduced mandatory minimum sentencing of 8 years for alcohol fuelled acts of violence,[42] as a response to the cases of king hit assaults in Sydney. These laws were championed by NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell largely due to the wide media coverage of similar cases.[43][44] In 2017, the government of Victoria introduced a "two-strike" policy, with a minimum six-year jail sentence for repeat violent offenders.[45] Australia also has legislation allowing mandatory prison sentences of between five and 25 years for people smuggling, in addition to a fine of up to $500,000, and forfeiture and destruction of the vessel or aircraft used in the offence.[37]

In New Zealand, life imprisonment is mandatory for murder. Murders with certain aggravating factors have a mandatory 17-year non-parole period, instead of the default 10 years for life imprisonment. Since 2002, judges have the ability to overrule mandatory sentences where they would be deemed "manifestly unjust", such as in cases involving mercy killings and attempted suicide pacts.[46]

Asia

[edit]

In 1930, the city of Guangzhou, China enacted a mandatory death penalty for three-time offenders.[47]

In India, murder committed by a convict serving a life sentence carries a mandatory death sentence. The mandatory death penalty provided in Section 31A of India Law is in the nature of minimum sentence in respect of repeat offenders of specified activities and for offences involving large quantities of specified categories of narcotic drugs. As of August 2005, aircraft hijacking also mandates use of the death penalty.[48]

Middle East

[edit]

In Israel, the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law mandates a death penalty for those found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or crimes against the Jewish people.[49]

Reception

[edit]

Studies that show people are deterred from crime more effectively by increasing the chances of their conviction, rather than increasing the sentence if they are convicted.[50] In a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Judge Paul G. Cassell, from the United States District Court for the District of Utah, described mandatory sentencing as resulting in harsh sentencing and cruel and unusual punishment, stating that the sentencing requirements punish defendants "more harshly for crimes that threaten potential violence than for crimes that conclude in actual violence to victims".[51] A hearing in 2009 heard testimony from the American Bar Association which stated that "Sentencing by mandatory minimums is the antithesis of rational sentencing policy".[52] In 2004 the association called for the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences, stating that "there is no need for mandatory minimum sentences in a guided sentencing system."[53] A 1997 study by the RAND Corporation found that in the US mandatory minimums for cocaine offenses were not cost-effective in regards to either cocaine consumption or drug crime.[54]

The Law Council of Australia considers mandatory sentencing to produce "significant economic and social cost without a corresponding benefit in crime reduction", and states that they "potentially increase the likelihood of reoffending as periods of incarceration can promote recidivism". Mandatory sentencing also removes the incentive to plead guilty as there will be no reduction in sentence duration from doing so. Accordingly, people are more likely to contest charges, placing additional financial burden on the criminal justice system, as well as causing delays in sentencing.[40]

Some judges have expressed the opinion that mandatory minimum sentencing, especially in relation to alcohol-fueled violence, is not effective. In R v O’Connor, the High Court of Australia gave the opinion that when an offender is intoxicated, there will likely be a change in their personality and behaviour, which will then affect their self-control; that, while an offender may commit an act which is voluntary and intentional, it is not something that they would have done in a sober state.[55] Intoxication is not a justification for criminal behaviour, nor (in most jurisdictions in the U.S. and Commonwealth) a legal defence; but since an intoxicated person's decisions are less likely to be shaped by rational assessment of consequences than those of a sober person, deterrence is likely to be less effective for intoxicated people. Mandatory sentencing is also considered to be completely ineffective at reducing crimes of passion that are not premeditated.[39]

Research indicates that mandatory minimum sentencing effectively shifts discretion from judges to the prosecutors. Prosecutors decide what charges to bring against a defendant, and they can "stack the deck", which involves over-charging a defendant to get them to plead guilty.[56] Since prosecutors are part of the executive branch, and the judicial branch has almost no role in the sentencing, the checks and balances of the democratic system are removed, thus diluting the notion of separation of powers.[57] Opponents of mandatory sentencing argue that it is the proper role of a judge, not a prosecutor, to apply discretion given the particular facts of a case (e.g., whether a drug defendant was a kingpin or low-level participant, or whether sex offender registration is an appropriate measure for a given crime and offender). When prosecutors apply discretion, they tend to invoke sentencing disparities when choosing among a variety of statutes with different sentencing consequences.[58] In addition to fairness arguments, some opponents believe that treatment is more cost-effective than long sentences. They also cite a survey indicating that the public now prefers judicial discretion to mandatory minimums.[59]

In 2015, a number of United States reformers, including the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Koch family foundations, the Coalition for Public Safety, and the MacArthur Foundation, announced a bipartisan resolution to reform the criminal justice system and reduce mandatory sentencing laws. Their efforts were lauded by President Obama who noted these reforms will improve rehabilitation and workforce opportunities for those who have served their sentences. In their arguments they noted that mandatory sentencing is often too harsh of a punishment and cripples someone's livelihood for minor crimes.[60][61][62][63]

In 2019, then presidential candidate Joe Biden unveiled his criminal justice reform plan which would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences.[64]

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]
  1. ^ Wright, Valerie (November 2010). "Deterrence in Criminal Justice; Evaluating Certainty vs Severity of Punishment" (PDF). The Sentencing Project. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 13, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  2. ^ Rothwell, V. (2011). "Boggs Act". In M. Kleiman, & J. Hawdon (Eds.), Encyclopedia of drug policy. (pp. 96–98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412976961.n42
  3. ^ Busted – America's War on Marijuana: Marijuana Timeline Archived July 9, 2014, at the Wayback Machine. Frontline (U.S. TV series). Public Broadcasting Service.
  4. ^ Snitch: Drug Laws and Snitching – a Primer Archived October 23, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Frontline (U.S. TV series). The article also has a chart of mandatory minimum sentences for first time drug offenders.
  5. ^ Thirty Years of America's Drug War Archived February 24, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Frontline (U.S. TV series).
  6. ^ Jones, Faith (April 15, 2014). "Encyclopaedia Judaica. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, editors. 2nd edition. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 22 vols. (18,015 pp.). ISBN 978-0-02-865928-2. $2,263. Electronic version published by Gale Cengage Learning (Gale Virtual Reference Library). ISBN 978-0-02-866097-4". Judaica Librarianship. 15 (1): 41–45. doi:10.14263/2330-2976.1041. ISSN 2330-2976. S2CID 144308376.
  7. ^ "Exception #1 to Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Federal Safety Valve for Drug Offences: 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)" (PDF). FAMM. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 7, 2014. Retrieved May 6, 2014.
  8. ^ Datta, Anusua (June 2017). "California's three strikes law revisited: assessing the long-term effects of the law". Atlantic Economic Journal. 45 (2): 225–249. doi:10.1007/s11293-017-9544-8. S2CID 157948227.
  9. ^ Allen Jones (June 12, 2008). "Let nonviolent prisoners out: Building beds for the mentally ill is a fine goal, but why not reduce overcrowding first?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 4, 2010.
  10. ^ Klickna, Cinda Ackerman (April 20, 2023). "From San Quentin to Springfield". Illinois Times. Archived from the original on April 18, 2024.
  11. ^ Section 775.087(2)(a) Archived June 29, 2017, at the Wayback Machine 1, 2, and 3, Florida Statutes
  12. ^ Doyle, Charles (January 11, 2018). Mandatory Minimum Sentencing of Federal Drug Offenses (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 4, 2018. Retrieved January 27, 2018.
  13. ^ "What Role Should the Guidelines Play in Sentencing White-Collar Offenders" (PDF).
  14. ^ Simons, Michael A. (2002), Departing Ways: Uniformity, Disparity and Cooperation in Federal Drug Sentences, vol. 47, Vill. L. Rev., p. 921, archived from the original on April 1, 2012
  15. ^ Kristen K. Sauer (June 1995). Informed Conviction: Instructing the Jury about Mandatory Sentencing Consequences. Vol. 95. Columbia Law Review. pp. 1232–1272.
  16. ^ State of Idaho v. Mario A. Ruiz (Court of Appeals of Idaho; February 19, 2009), Text, archived from the original on May 1, 2012.
  17. ^ Scott Higham; Sari Horwitz; Katie Zezima (March 13, 2019). "The Fentanyl Failure". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 14, 2019. After the Holder memo, Capuano said federal prosecutors would no longer take the lower-level cases and morale among his drug agents plummeted as heroin and fentanyl overdoses soared.
  18. ^ Memorandum from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, to U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Criminal Division regarding Department Policy on Charging Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Recidivist Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases (August 12, 2013) available at: "Department Policy on Charging Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Recidivist Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 31, 2013. Retrieved October 29, 2013. (access-date: October 28, 2013)
  19. ^ Brannen, Daniel (2011). "Supreme Court Drama". Cases That Changed America. 2: 287–290.
  20. ^ United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)
  21. ^ Mann, Jennifer S. (August 10, 2014). "Life sentence reform for juveniles may pass by St. Louis robber serving 241 years". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on August 28, 2018.
  22. ^ Barbara S. Meierhoefer, The General Effect of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A Longitudinal Study of Federal Sentences Imposed Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine (Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1992), p. 20. PDF file Archived June 1, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.
  23. ^ "Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System". United States Sentencing Commission. October 28, 2013. Archived from the original on May 6, 2014. Retrieved May 6, 2014.
  24. ^ "206. Punishment for capital murder-Mandatory. (1) Everyone who commits capital murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to death." An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Capital Murder)
  25. ^ "Kapitel 2 – Lovgivningsmagtens angivelse af strafniveau". Archived from the original on October 29, 2013.
  26. ^ "German Criminal Code". Archived from the original on August 14, 2017.
  27. ^ a b c d e Hurley, Daniel; Keyes, Finn (May 22, 2019). "Mandatory Sentences: Wayne Ellis v Minister for Justice and Equality" (PDF). Oireachtas Library & Research Service Notes. Oireachtas. Retrieved June 5, 2021.
  28. ^ Lynch & Whelan v Minister for Justice [2010] IESC 34 (14 May 2010)
  29. ^ Ellis v Minister for Justice and Equality & Ors [2019] IESC 30 (15 May 2019)
  30. ^ O'Faolain, Aodhan (June 4, 2021). "High Court rules section of Misuse of Drugs Act is unconstitutional". The Irish Times. Retrieved June 5, 2021.
  31. ^ "Sentencing – Mandatory life sentences in murder cases: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service". Archived from the original on January 29, 2013.
  32. ^ "Mandatory and Minimum Custodial Sentences: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service". Archived from the original on November 24, 2017.
  33. ^ "Legislation.gov.uk". www.opsi.gov.uk. Archived from the original on November 26, 2007. Retrieved May 4, 2018.
  34. ^ Text of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Archived July 4, 2006, at the Wayback Machine and Text of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 Archived February 7, 2006, at the Wayback Machine from The Stationery Office
  35. ^ a b "Mandatory Sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 15, 2015.
  36. ^ Australian Women Lawyer's Association (1999), Submission to Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into mandatory detention laws, pp. 26–36
  37. ^ a b "NSW Parliamentary Research Service" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 9, 2014.
  38. ^ "Impact of mandatory sentencing". Australian Law Reform Commission. January 11, 2018.
  39. ^ a b "Mandatory sentencing: does it reduce crime?". ABC News. February 5, 2014. Archived from the original on February 5, 2014.
  40. ^ a b "Policy Discussion Paper on Mandatory Sentencing" (PDF). Law Council of Australia. 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 20, 2024.
  41. ^ "Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2011 - NSW Parliament". Archived from the original on October 26, 2014. Retrieved October 26, 2014.
  42. ^ "Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Bill 2014 - NSW Parliament". Archived from the original on October 26, 2014. Retrieved October 26, 2014.
  43. ^ [The Honorable Barry O’Farrell MP ‘Lockouts & Mandatory Minimums to be Introduced to Tackle Drug and Alcohol Violence’ (Media Release) January 21, 2014.]
  44. ^ R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120 (4 July 2014), Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW, Australia); R v Loveridge [2013] NSWSC 1638 (8 November 2013), Supreme Court (NSW, Australia); Julia Quilter, "One-Punch Laws, Mandatory Minimums and ‘Alcohol-Fuelled’ as an Aggravating Factor: Implications for NSW Criminal Law" (2014) 3(1) International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy 84.
  45. ^ Worrall, Allison; Willingham, Richard (April 11, 2017). "Victorian Liberals push for mandatory sentences for repeat violent offenders". The Age. Archived from the original on April 23, 2018. Retrieved May 4, 2018.
  46. ^ Chhana, Rajesh; Spier, Philip; Roberts, Susan; Hurd, Chris (March 2004). The Sentencing Act 2002: Monitoring the First Year. pp. 13–14. Archived from the original on February 15, 2016. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
  47. ^ "Canton restaures death penalty to halt crime". St. Petersburg Times. Associated Press. November 16, 1930. p. 13. Retrieved September 11, 2017.
  48. ^ "India adopts tough hijack policy" Archived March 14, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. BBC News, August 14, 2005
  49. ^ Bazyler, Michael; Scheppach, Julia (2012). "The Strange and Curious History of the Law Used to Prosecute Adolf Eichmann". Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. 34 (3): 427. ISSN 0277-5417.
  50. ^ Landsberg, Steven E. (December 9, 1999). "Does Crime Pay?". Slate. Archived from the original on May 30, 2023.
  51. ^ "Mandatory Minimum Terms Result In Harsh Sentencing". Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. June 26, 2007. Archived from the original on December 8, 2010. Retrieved September 16, 2016.
  52. ^ "Sentencing Commission Takes New Look at Mandatory Minimums". Third Branch News. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. June 1, 2010. Archived from the original on October 11, 2012.
  53. ^ "Sentencing Commission Takes New Look at Mandatory Minimums". Third Branch News. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. July 2004. Archived from the original on October 11, 2012.
  54. ^ Caulkins, Jonathan (1997). "Are Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences Cost-Effective?". RAND Corporation. Archived from the original on April 13, 2016. Retrieved March 29, 2016.
  55. ^ R v O’Connor [1980] HCA 17 at per Barwick CJ at 17, (1980) 146 CLR 64 (20 June 1980), High Court (Australia).
  56. ^ "Longitudinal Study of the Application of Measure 11 and Mandatory Minimums in Oregon" (PDF). Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 12, 2012.
  57. ^ Magaming v The Queen [2013] HCA 40 (11 October 2013), High Court (Australia).
  58. ^ Weistein, Ian (Winter 2003), Fifteen years after the federal sentencing revolution: How mandatory minimums have undermined effective and just narcotics sentencing, Georgetown University Law Center, ProQuest 230349906
  59. ^ "FAMM – Families Against Mandatory Minimums". Archived from the original on April 20, 2006.
  60. ^ Mak, Tim (January 13, 2015). "Koch Bros to Bankroll Prison Reform". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on February 21, 2016.
  61. ^ Horwitz, Sari (August 15, 2015). "Unlikely Allies". Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 13, 2017.
  62. ^ Gass Henry (October 20, 2015). "Congress's big, bipartisan success that might be just beginning". Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on March 1, 2016.
  63. ^ Mccain, Colleen; Fields, Gary (July 16, 2015). "Obama, Koch Brothers in Unlikely Alliance to Overhaul Criminal Justice". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on February 16, 2017.
  64. ^ "Democratic candidate Joe Biden unveils criminal justice reform plan". nypost. July 23, 2019.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandatory_sentencing&oldid=1269954553"