The number one thing that caught my eye from the article Who Gets Time for Federal Drug Offenses was the fact that many individuals being convicted of drug trafficking are being sentenced to the very minimum sentences. A minimum sentence may not sound like a lot, but when you look at the severity of punishment given to those that are a part of drug trafficking the minimum is typically 11 years. Even though they may not have played a major role in the trafficking they are still being sentenced to 11 years in prison. The example that we use in class plays into this perfectly. Even if judges want to use discretion and give a young teen a less severe sentence they are not able to because the minimum is so high. Many of these young convicts are being sentenced to 11 years even though it was a non-violent crime with no weapon. If there is no rehabilitation for the younger inmates the only benefit they will get from prison is how to be a better criminal. A chart in the article showed that if drug offense inmates had their prison time cut in half then the prison population would drop 18 percent. All of those young inmates would be able to get back into the community and start over and a decent age. This article showed the need for more discretion in the sentencing of drug trafficking and the need for those in prison to have their sentences cut. -Bulls003
I am having a hard time making life changes decisions at the age I am now, I can imagine getting arrested three years ago for a stupid mistake and then getting out seven or eight years from now and have to make those same decisions then. Not to mention that it will be even more difficult because I will have to carry around that “criminal” stereotype for a long time to come. -NOsaints003
What is shocking to me is even if they transport any amount of drugs over state lines it can end them in federal prison. If they gave the discretion back to judges to allow them to decide punishment it would be best for the country. There should be no reason for someone to spend 11 years in prison for a no violent offense. A lesser sentence would benefit the prisoner and the government by saving money. Max003
This was a pretty good article to read. It had many valid points that we should consider. One of these points is the amount of prison time we are giving these drug offenders. It is really ridiculous that most of these federal prisoners have no background as being violent. However we still sentence them to 15 to 20 years in prison. We have rapist out in the world who served jail time or have been given probation. These are the offenders that should be doing this hard time not these nonviolent drug offenders. Most if not all have a low recidivism rate and probably will not re-offend. Just taking any drugs over a state line is considered a federal crime. The war on drugs that started in the 70’s has completely filed us. We have overcrowded jails and prisons and every person staying there we as tax payers are funding it. We could be giving these offenders lighter sentences and spend the money of incarcerating them on other things to keep these people form going to prison in the first place. Max003
I agree with you that the mandatory minimums are ridiculously high for no reason. I understand that this is meant to be a deterrence for those "drug lords" out these selling at high volume, but for the kid who can't afford college books selling ounces at a time for a quick dollar, how is twenty years fair? CK003
yes I agree with you, 15 20 years to someone with no background is a bit harsh in my eyes. I think they should have to serve a punishment, but that should not be mandatory prison time. GRUNT003
I like what im seeing the numbers are getting lower and lower which is nice to see because we dont eighty thousand drug offenders in jail when most of them never done a crime in there life or if they did it was petty stuff but 20 years in jail can change someone and in jail or prison its not in a good way so you lock these lower level guys up spend crazy amount of money to keep them there and make them it gangster or more angry criminals then more liky to affend again end up right back there i think we should do a lot a a lot more physical punishment digging holes picking trash up helping old people well being watched but more people that we can get out of prison that shouldn't be there and we pretty much know which one those are we can spend more money on school and the city we live in. cowboys003
You have a good point about not wanting a large number of drug offenders with no criminal records behind bars. The criminals that the criminal justice system need to focus more on and lock up in jail and prisons with long, or life sentences are the individuals who commits murder, rape, or any crime that threatens the lives of citizens, instead of an individual who gets caught with an ounce of marijuana, but he, or she didn't put anyone's' life in danger. -RW003
This article basically just proves to me that our professor isn't a crazy person; this is all just information to back up the things that he has already been preaching so much about every day. Over fifty percent of those incarcerated have no prior history to drug-related offenses, and when we consider the high mandatory minimum for these crimes during the "War on Drugs," we will also see that over most of those imprisoned have only served about half of their received sentence. I agree that we need to be imprisoning those who commit extremely violent crimes such as cold-blooded murder, rape, etc, but ten and twenty year sentences for an ounce of any drug seems a bit harsh. Obviously we have to find a way to make the criminal justice system more fluid without making it prejudice or bias because circumstances could change varying by the offense, but I digress; we need to change our views on punishment and work on [re]habilitating. CK003
I agree that our criminal Justice system is messed up and that the over punish those that have done petty crimes.In the video we watched i agree with the man that said rehabilitating works. But we as a people have to push more for it and actually work with them LT003
Reading this post and realizing that only a small amount over 25 percent have had no prior convictions. And knowing that most of them have committed a minor or a non violent crimes. From the chart saying that serious crime history is 22 percent, minor history is 22 percent and then no history at all is 56 percent. I don’t think it is right that all these men and woman and getting a long time in prison for selling drugs and not having a past record just because of mandatory sentences and mandatory minimums. I believe that so many lives’ have been ruined over this and it must be fixed. GRUNT003
How can you really give these people a one shoe fits all punishment because someone thats never done anything barley left home before then put them in jail were forced to join a gang which is crazy to me because i could never join a gang so i guess i would not make it long well then these guys get out then they still have to be gangster you cant just quit so yea we really need to look into each case and hire more people if you have because the thousand of people you keep out you'll save millions of dollars.cowboys003
After reading this article, the information that stood out to me the most was the statistics of about 49 percent of the inmates were serving drug sentences in a federal prison. This goes back to what we discussed in class about the private prisons owned by the government and they open up these facilities, so they receive money from the state to keep these individual in prison with no rehabilitation. In my opinion, an individual should a get sentence of a year or less in jail for the possession of drugs, but not 10 or more years in prison for non-violent offenses with drugs. Some of these individuals who are incarcerated for an ounce of marijuana, or an ounce of cocaine are people who got caught once with it and they weren't involved in violent crimes. The court system needs to reconsider the sentencing limit for the inmates with drug offenses because this are unfair to them since they have no criminal record and they have a right to a second at life after a short sentence behind bars. -RW003
We have talked about this a lot this semester, John Doe gets cause smuggling a kilo across state boarders for extra cash so his family can eat, he receives the mandatory minimum for that particular crime. The mandatory minimum takes away discretionary powers from the judge, and with these offenders who most likely will learn their lesson in a couple months getting stuck in prison for years over crowds the prison population and has the chance of turning that individual into a harden criminal that otherwise would not have been. With this article, it seems that our Judicial system is starting to understand the errors that have been made and are making moves to change these mandatory sentencing laws. What does that do for the offenders that are already stuck in prison though? Are we letting them out early or are we just leaving them there to serve their unwarranted time? -NOsaints003
I agree that our judicial system is beginning to understand the mistakes it made in the past and what it needs to do to prevent further over population. I believe that the mandatory minimum laws for drug trafficking and other drug related offenses need to be lowered or given more discretional power. This will enable judges to make a clear choice on what the individual really deserves to be sentenced with. -Bulls003
Well knowing that Obama is trying to get this solved before they get sentenced. I would think he has a pretty good idea of what he's going to do about the people who are already in jail but he definitely won't leave them there. However sentences that over rules the power of discretion that the judges have. I think is an awesome rule that the judges have to follow. If someone has drugs that reaches the amount of mandatory minimum sentence. Then they absolutely deserve it unless of course if there innocent.-K9003
Removing judicial discretion and imposing minimum sentencing across the board on one type of offender is not a good idea. The article stated that most of the people incarcerated for drug trafficking and other drug offenses did not have a serious criminal record. People who do not have a serious criminal record should not spend excess amounts of time in prisons, it does not serve a benefit to society to pay for their prison time or to keep someone who could have been a more productive member of society out of the loop long enough for their legitimate work skills to atrophy. A possible explanation for people without criminal records still being given long minimum sentencing would be the general deterrence that it would provide to anyone thinking of running drugs for the first time. However, trying to deter a crime by giving the act an overly severe or less proportional punishment will not be as effective as ensuring the punishment is swift and certain would be. Prisons should not be made to hold people who are not a danger to society. Trafficking large amounts of narcotics is a serious crime since the substances they are moving do cause a lot of pain in addiction and overdose, but many first time offenders are not going to see the actual damage that their crime does and never learn why the act was wrong. If a judge had the discretion to send mandate that a drug trafficker have to do community service helping drug addicts or something other form of restitution, then the rational offender could be convinced not to go for that easy money again. Relying on the specific deterrence of prison time to do that may not be as effective, and will make it harder for the offender to find legitimate work. CoolGuy003
This article is very informative. Seeing ideas being made to reduce the mandatory drug offence by 50 percent, this would reduce the prison population by 18 percent. This is a great way to solve our current problem of prison overcrowding. To be honest, there are many man out there who could use this emptied out space. These charts shows how there are ways in which we can decrease population, which is a relieve, because current inmate population only make this country seem bad. People who does minor drug offence as stated in class, were not always bad people, so locking them up for a long time only hardens this individual's anger, by the time they leave, they would be a battle hardened criminal. Having these ideas implemented and decrease the populations would be a beneficial way to save some money, in which this country needed the most. The percentage of people who are locked up, with no prior criminal record is 56 percent, most of these man, I believe are one time lawbreakers, so giving them a second chance may very well make this person a better man. I am not against of locking up serious drug offenders, but the minor and no prior history inmates, should deserve a chance to fit into the society again. In this article, I only see the good, but the negatives, as much as I can see are far fewer than the positive outcomes. JZ003
Drugs in America is a huge problem. Epically with African American males and Mexican males. Criminals who get put in prison from drugs are 50 percent accurate. Because part of the 50 is innocent and the other 50 is guilty. Most of that is determine by the discretion of the judge and by the evidence and who the defendant is. But because the was caught with in their possession or area they are guilty. When the are talked about the 49 percent of criminals are serving time from drug possession, which is why Obama is trying to release everyone from prison. Who are innocent and who committed no violent offences. But over all the stats show a significant amount of inmates who been convicted of drugs, within federal prison.-K9003
I really liked this article. The main point that got to me was that the people that have been arrested for drugs get a longer sentence. Especially without having any Criminal background and at that none at all. I believe that our jails and prisons are overcrowded because of the people that are being locked up over petty crimes. There are more serious crimes being done. I like that Obama is gibing people second chances LT003
The number one thing that caught my eye from the article Who Gets Time for Federal Drug Offenses was the fact that many individuals being convicted of drug trafficking are being sentenced to the very minimum sentences. A minimum sentence may not sound like a lot, but when you look at the severity of punishment given to those that are a part of drug trafficking the minimum is typically 11 years. Even though they may not have played a major role in the trafficking they are still being sentenced to 11 years in prison. The example that we use in class plays into this perfectly. Even if judges want to use discretion and give a young teen a less severe sentence they are not able to because the minimum is so high. Many of these young convicts are being sentenced to 11 years even though it was a non-violent crime with no weapon. If there is no rehabilitation for the younger inmates the only benefit they will get from prison is how to be a better criminal. A chart in the article showed that if drug offense inmates had their prison time cut in half then the prison population would drop 18 percent. All of those young inmates would be able to get back into the community and start over and a decent age. This article showed the need for more discretion in the sentencing of drug trafficking and the need for those in prison to have their sentences cut. -Bulls003
ReplyDeleteI am having a hard time making life changes decisions at the age I am now, I can imagine getting arrested three years ago for a stupid mistake and then getting out seven or eight years from now and have to make those same decisions then. Not to mention that it will be even more difficult because I will have to carry around that “criminal” stereotype for a long time to come. -NOsaints003
DeleteWhat is shocking to me is even if they transport any amount of drugs over state lines it can end them in federal prison. If they gave the discretion back to judges to allow them to decide punishment it would be best for the country. There should be no reason for someone to spend 11 years in prison for a no violent offense. A lesser sentence would benefit the prisoner and the government by saving money. Max003
DeleteThis was a pretty good article to read. It had many valid points that we should consider. One of these points is the amount of prison time we are giving these drug offenders. It is really ridiculous that most of these federal prisoners have no background as being violent. However we still sentence them to 15 to 20 years in prison. We have rapist out in the world who served jail time or have been given probation. These are the offenders that should be doing this hard time not these nonviolent drug offenders. Most if not all have a low recidivism rate and probably will not re-offend. Just taking any drugs over a state line is considered a federal crime. The war on drugs that started in the 70’s has completely filed us. We have overcrowded jails and prisons and every person staying there we as tax payers are funding it. We could be giving these offenders lighter sentences and spend the money of incarcerating them on other things to keep these people form going to prison in the first place. Max003
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the mandatory minimums are ridiculously high for no reason. I understand that this is meant to be a deterrence for those "drug lords" out these selling at high volume, but for the kid who can't afford college books selling ounces at a time for a quick dollar, how is twenty years fair? CK003
Deleteyes I agree with you, 15 20 years to someone with no background is a bit harsh in my eyes. I think they should have to serve a punishment, but that should not be mandatory prison time.
DeleteGRUNT003
I like what im seeing the numbers are getting lower and lower which is nice to see because we dont eighty thousand drug offenders in jail when most of them never done a crime in there life or if they did it was petty stuff but 20 years in jail can change someone and in jail or prison its not in a good way so you lock these lower level guys up spend crazy amount of money to keep them there and make them it gangster or more angry criminals then more liky to affend again end up right back there i think we should do a lot a a lot more physical punishment digging holes picking trash up helping old people well being watched but more people that we can get out of prison that shouldn't be there and we pretty much know which one those are we can spend more money on school and the city we live in. cowboys003
ReplyDeleteYou have a good point about not wanting a large number of drug offenders with no criminal records behind bars. The criminals that the criminal justice system need to focus more on and lock up in jail and prisons with long, or life sentences are the individuals who commits murder, rape, or any crime that threatens the lives of citizens, instead of an individual who gets caught with an ounce of marijuana, but he, or she didn't put anyone's' life in danger. -RW003
DeleteThis article basically just proves to me that our professor isn't a crazy person; this is all just information to back up the things that he has already been preaching so much about every day. Over fifty percent of those incarcerated have no prior history to drug-related offenses, and when we consider the high mandatory minimum for these crimes during the "War on Drugs," we will also see that over most of those imprisoned have only served about half of their received sentence. I agree that we need to be imprisoning those who commit extremely violent crimes such as cold-blooded murder, rape, etc, but ten and twenty year sentences for an ounce of any drug seems a bit harsh. Obviously we have to find a way to make the criminal justice system more fluid without making it prejudice or bias because circumstances could change varying by the offense, but I digress; we need to change our views on punishment and work on [re]habilitating. CK003
ReplyDeleteI agree that our criminal Justice system is messed up and that the over punish those that have done petty crimes.In the video we watched i agree with the man that said rehabilitating works. But we as a people have to push more for it and actually work with them LT003
DeleteReading this post and realizing that only a small amount over 25 percent have had no prior convictions. And knowing that most of them have committed a minor or a non violent crimes. From the chart saying that serious crime history is 22 percent, minor history is 22 percent and then no history at all is 56 percent. I don’t think it is right that all these men and woman and getting a long time in prison for selling drugs and not having a past record just because of mandatory sentences and mandatory minimums. I believe that so many lives’ have been ruined over this and it must be fixed.
ReplyDeleteGRUNT003
How can you really give these people a one shoe fits all punishment because someone thats never done anything barley left home before then put them in jail were forced to join a gang which is crazy to me because i could never join a gang so i guess i would not make it long well then these guys get out then they still have to be gangster you cant just quit so yea we really need to look into each case and hire more people if you have because the thousand of people you keep out you'll save millions of dollars.cowboys003
DeleteAfter reading this article, the information that stood out to me the most was the statistics of about 49 percent of the inmates were serving drug sentences in a federal prison. This goes back to what we discussed in class about the private prisons owned by the government and they open up these facilities, so they receive money from the state to keep these individual in prison with no rehabilitation. In my opinion, an individual should a get sentence of a year or less in jail for the possession of drugs, but not 10 or more years in prison for non-violent offenses with drugs. Some of these individuals who are incarcerated for an ounce of marijuana, or an ounce of cocaine are people who got caught once with it and they weren't involved in violent crimes. The court system needs to reconsider the sentencing limit for the inmates with drug offenses because this are unfair to them since they have no criminal record and they have a right to a second at life after a short sentence behind bars. -RW003
ReplyDeleteWe have talked about this a lot this semester, John Doe gets cause smuggling a kilo across state boarders for extra cash so his family can eat, he receives the mandatory minimum for that particular crime. The mandatory minimum takes away discretionary powers from the judge, and with these offenders who most likely will learn their lesson in a couple months getting stuck in prison for years over crowds the prison population and has the chance of turning that individual into a harden criminal that otherwise would not have been. With this article, it seems that our Judicial system is starting to understand the errors that have been made and are making moves to change these mandatory sentencing laws. What does that do for the offenders that are already stuck in prison though? Are we letting them out early or are we just leaving them there to serve their unwarranted time? -NOsaints003
ReplyDeleteI agree that our judicial system is beginning to understand the mistakes it made in the past and what it needs to do to prevent further over population. I believe that the mandatory minimum laws for drug trafficking and other drug related offenses need to be lowered or given more discretional power. This will enable judges to make a clear choice on what the individual really deserves to be sentenced with. -Bulls003
DeleteWell knowing that Obama is trying to get this solved before they get sentenced. I would think he has a pretty good idea of what he's going to do about the people who are already in jail but he definitely won't leave them there. However sentences that over rules the power of discretion that the judges have. I think is an awesome rule that the judges have to follow. If someone has drugs that reaches the amount of mandatory minimum sentence. Then they absolutely deserve it unless of course if there innocent.-K9003
DeleteRemoving judicial discretion and imposing minimum sentencing across the board on one type of offender is not a good idea. The article stated that most of the people incarcerated for drug trafficking and other drug offenses did not have a serious criminal record. People who do not have a serious criminal record should not spend excess amounts of time in prisons, it does not serve a benefit to society to pay for their prison time or to keep someone who could have been a more productive member of society out of the loop long enough for their legitimate work skills to atrophy. A possible explanation for people without criminal records still being given long minimum sentencing would be the general deterrence that it would provide to anyone thinking of running drugs for the first time. However, trying to deter a crime by giving the act an overly severe or less proportional punishment will not be as effective as ensuring the punishment is swift and certain would be. Prisons should not be made to hold people who are not a danger to society. Trafficking large amounts of narcotics is a serious crime since the substances they are moving do cause a lot of pain in addiction and overdose, but many first time offenders are not going to see the actual damage that their crime does and never learn why the act was wrong. If a judge had the discretion to send mandate that a drug trafficker have to do community service helping drug addicts or something other form of restitution, then the rational offender could be convinced not to go for that easy money again. Relying on the specific deterrence of prison time to do that may not be as effective, and will make it harder for the offender to find legitimate work. CoolGuy003
ReplyDeleteThis article is very informative. Seeing ideas being made to reduce the mandatory drug offence by 50 percent, this would reduce the prison population by 18 percent. This is a great way to solve our current problem of prison overcrowding. To be honest, there are many man out there who could use this emptied out space. These charts shows how there are ways in which we can decrease population, which is a relieve, because current inmate population only make this country seem bad. People who does minor drug offence as stated in class, were not always bad people, so locking them up for a long time only hardens this individual's anger, by the time they leave, they would be a battle hardened criminal. Having these ideas implemented and decrease the populations would be a beneficial way to save some money, in which this country needed the most. The percentage of people who are locked up, with no prior criminal record is 56 percent, most of these man, I believe are one time lawbreakers, so giving them a second chance may very well make this person a better man. I am not against of locking up serious drug offenders, but the minor and no prior history inmates, should deserve a chance to fit into the society again. In this article, I only see the good, but the negatives, as much as I can see are far fewer than the positive outcomes. JZ003
ReplyDeleteDrugs in America is a huge problem. Epically with African American males and Mexican males. Criminals who get put in prison from drugs are 50 percent accurate. Because part of the 50 is innocent and the other 50 is guilty. Most of that is determine by the discretion of the judge and by the evidence and who the defendant is. But because the was caught with in their possession or area they are guilty. When the are talked about the 49 percent of criminals are serving time from drug possession, which is why Obama is trying to release everyone from prison. Who are innocent and who committed no violent offences. But over all the stats show a significant amount of inmates who been convicted of drugs, within federal prison.-K9003
ReplyDeleteI really liked this article. The main point that got to me was that the people that have been arrested for drugs get a longer sentence. Especially without having any Criminal background and at that none at all. I believe that our jails and prisons are overcrowded because of the people that are being locked up over petty crimes. There are more serious crimes being done. I like that Obama is gibing people second chances LT003
ReplyDelete