Isabella Aquino

ENGH 302
4/13/2016
Mandatory Minimums and Impacts on American Society
Our current society and legal system condones the sentencing of non-violent crimes to
exceed those of rapists, sex offenders, and murderers. The average sentence for rapists, sex
offenders, and murderers ranges between three and eleven years maximum (Barkow et al,
2015b). On the other hand, the average sentence for a first time, non-violent drug offense is
between a minimum of 15-55 years, with a maximum penalty of life in prison (Barkow et al.,
2015a, p. 191). When read, the crimes do not seem to match the sentences in the slightest and
may not even seem believable at first. However, it is the truth; our society fears minor drugs
more than being violated by another person. Many of the current drug laws have been altered
since the Reagan Administration declared the War on Drugs in the United States, especially
concerning marijuana. However, despite modernizing drug laws to fit today's standards,
prisoners convicted prior to these alterations are left to serve life sentences while others
convicted of the same crime are released much earlier.
Additionally, citizens are still being sentenced to excessively long minimum sentences for
minor drug-related crimes, such as possession, nearly thirty years after the initial declaration of
the War on Drugs. These sentences, or mandatory minimums, are not only excessive but
disproportionately mismatched, and unethical. Likewise, these minimums disregard important
factors and circumstances of the citizens who receive these sentences, and further compromises
their dignity as human beings by taking away the possibility of parole. Mandatory minimums on

first-time and minor drug offenses should be reduced significantly given that the severity of the
crime is ill-fit for the severity of the punishment.
One may argue that mandatory minimums are simply the consequence of a crime.
However, if time incarcerated is indicative of the severity of crime, than solely being in
possession of marijuana is significantly more severe than voluntary manslaughter, according to
the United States Sentencing Commission (Barkow et al., 2015a, p. 51). In addition, federal
mandatory minimum sentences are not made based on the severity of the drug-related crime;
they are based on the scale-weight of the drug in possession. (Cano & Spohn, 2012). This
mindset disregards the context of these laws and the setting in which they were mandated.
Mandatory minimum laws were set during the anti-drug frenzy throughout the Reagan
Administrations War on Drugs, which provides a slightly more realistic context to these high
minimums (Bowman, 2014). However, these minimums have not decreased or modernized. In
addition, a disproportionate population of those arrested with mandatory minimum sentences are
minorities, particularly in low-income, urban settings (Ghandnoosh, 2014).
Many Anti-Drug laws set during the Reagan Administration, such as the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act against crack cocaine, worked specifically against low-income minority populations,
particularly African Americans. (Bowman, 2014). Today, policy is still prejudiced against
African American and Latino populations, especially in urban areas. For example, drug-free
school-zone laws dictate that if someone is caught carrying or selling drugs in a mandated
school-zones, that persons sentencing will increase upon arrest. Low-income urban areas are
dense in population and geographically compact, making the chances higher that someone
selling or carrying drugs will be selling or carrying in an inner-school zone. (Ghandnoosh, 2014,

p. 24). Many of these individuals are often victim of the cycle of poverty and racial profiling, and
inevitably end up incarcerated.
Latinos and African Americans currently make up more than two-thirds of the total prison
population in the United States (Boyd & Carter, 2014). By 2011, Latinos and African American
populations made up more than half of the total racial demographic serving mandatory
minimums (USSC, 2012). About two-thirds of these arrests are for non-violent drug offenses,
such as possession, and almost 90% only possessed small amounts of marijuana at the time of
their arrest (Boyd & Carter, 2014). Out of those who were likely to receive relief from the
minimums, African Americans were substantially less likely to receive relief (USSC, 2012).
Combined with racial profiling and uneven socioeconomic distribution of resources, mandatory
minimums heavily contribute to the mass incarceration of minorities, sunk costs into managing
incarceration facilities, and sheer explosion in the population of incarcerated citizens since the
Reagan Administration (LastWeekTonight, 2015).
Along with incarcerating a high disparity of minorities, mandatory minimums not only
serve as an ineffective method of decreasing drug use, but also prove to perpetuate the cycle of
poverty. Many of those incarcerated with mandatory minimums hail from low-income areas, and
are usually not aware of the severity or length of the sentences. (LastWeekTonight, 2015). When
income, education, and employment are low, people will do what they can to continue living.
This includes selling drugs, if it means making ends meet. In these circumstances, the fear of
hunger or death often outdoes the fear of incarceration. Similarly, when caught, if the mandatory
minimum does not outdo the average American lifespan, life after prison proves to be equally
challenging to life before prison.

In many states, mandatory minimum sentencing is indicative of a felony charge,

regardless of the severity of the crime (Cano & Spohn, 2012). Many employers will not hire a
convicted felon. As a result, convicted citizens often resort back to selling drugs or becoming
involved in other illegal activities, which results in being sent back to jail or prison. This
recidivism ultimately serves to be counterproductive and does nothing to break the cycle of
poverty. On the other side, family members that are dependent on the person convicted are left to
fend for themselves. For example, a family with one bread-winner or a single-mother with two
children would be greatly affected by a mandatory minimum conviction. In reality, reduced
sentences would prove just as, if not more, effective as long sentences by providing realistic
consequences that match the crime (LastWeekTonight, 2015).
Additionally, some of the sentences are already reduced to fit modern legislation. For
example, mandatory minimums for possession of marijuana have decreased because of
legalization in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (LastWeekTonight, 2015). However,
those convicted with high mandatory minimums prior to the reduction are set to serve their
original sentences, despite the reduction. In essence, two inmates could be serving time for the
same offence, but one would be released earlier. This indicates that mandatory minimums are not
symptomatic of crime, but of social attitudes to drugs. In result, these reductions prove that
sentences do not need to be excessive to be affective. In fact, in present day, mandatory
minimums do not decrease drug use but allow for further oppression of low-income minorities
and perpetuation of the cycle of poverty.
Mandatory minimum sentences are excessive, ineffective, and serve as ill-fit
consequences to minor crimes. While initially effective during the 1980s, the drug world, laws,
and enforcement have transformed since the days of the War on Drugs. Although originally

designed as a deterrent, mandatory minimums only prove to victimize low-income minorities

and further perpetuate the cycle of poverty. Additionally, mandatory minimums serve as a large
factor in the mass increase in incarceration of American citizens since the 1980s. Reduction of
mandatory minimums indicates that the problem is not the drugs itself, but rather, social
acceptance and norms. Yet, society and legislation accept this as normal by continuing to group
first-time or minor drug offences on-par with murder and rape. By collectively agreeing that
mass incarceration without long-term a strategy is a solution for social reform, society agrees to
perpetuate inequality. Ultimately, society cannot progress until the cycle of poverty is properly
broken.

Dear Isabella,
I loved reading your paper, there really wasnt anything big that I had to correct or point out
aside from what I already marked up. I especially loved your transition from one paragraph to
the next. As for your sources I think they are very well thought out and agree with your topic and
proved your thesis. However, I think it would be a good ideas if you can with another sources
that would contradicted your thesis to give the other sides perspective on your topic.

Thanks hope my review helped

Rida =)

References
Barkow, R. E., Breyer, C. R., Friedrich, D. L., Saris, P. B., Wilson Smoot, J. P., & Wroblewski, J.
J. (2015, November). United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual (United
States of America, United States Sentencing Commission).
Barkow, R. E., Breyer, C. R., Friedrich, D. L., Saris, P. B., Wilson Smoot, J. P., & Wroblewski, J.
J. (2015, November). United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual: Sentencing Table
(United States of America, United States Sentencing Commission).

Bowman, S. W. (2014). Color behind bars: Racism in the U.S. prison system. Santa Barbara:
Praeger.
Boyd, S. C., & Carter, C. (2014). Killer weed: Marijuana grow ops, media, and justice.
University of Toronto Press.
Cano, M. V., & Spohn, C. (2012). Circumventing the Penalty for Offenders Facing Mandatory
Minimums: Revisiting the Dynamics of "Sympathetic" and "Salvageable" Offenders.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(3), 308-332. doi:10.1177/0093854811431419
Ghandnoosh, N. (2014). Race and punishment: Racial perceptions of crime and support for
punitive policies. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project.
LastWeekTonight. (2015, July 26). Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Mandatory Minimums
(HBO). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDVmldTurqk
United States of America, United States Sentencing Commission. (2012). Quick Facts:
Mandatory Minimum Penalties.