Debate

Truth-in-Sentencing Debate

By Darrell Lee, David Silber, Tamara Lightfoot, Anitha Green

Axia College of University of Phoenix

December 16, 2012

CJA/204

Instructor: CANDRA MOORE

Truth-in-sentencing: laws were put into place to make sure that an offender serves a minimum amount of a sentence in prison and not be eligible for parole until 85% of the sentence has been served. There are many truth-in-sentence arguments for and against it. The law has merit and should be used as a tool for deterring crime.

Michael Sullivan said that "Mandatory minimum sentences are keeping serious offenders off our streets longer, keeping our communities safer. In addition to these important goals being achieved -- uniformity in sentencing, certain offenses carrying certainty in punishment" (Michael J. Sullivan, JD, former Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), provided the following statement on July 14, 2009).

The fact the offenders will know that if they commit an offense that the punishment is already set will reinforce the goal of the punishment. Set consequences will keep offenders from wanting to commit crimes. This law should be used for violent crimes and, on a case by case basis, be used for some nonviolent crimes.

Mandatory minimums would also serve the justice system because the courts would not be able to abuse their power. A judge would not be able to impose a sentence that is to harsh because of a personal opinion. This also has an effect on lower level criminals. They will be more willing to talk to an investigator about an open or ongoing case. This information could be leverage for a lesser charge. A lesser charge would mean a lesser sentence. The system would be able to find and make cases against the higher level criminals. This may not be as prevalent in many cases but in drug cases this is a very important tool that an investigator can use to find and arrest the leader of a group.

The...