Compulsory sentencing is a form of punishment where judges have no discretion over the sentence given to a convicted offender. Proponents argue it enforces impartiality, while opponents argue it prevents judges from considering specific circumstances. Mandatory sentencing laws can lead to harsh punishments for minor crimes, which opponents see as a condemnation of the practice.
Compulsory sentencing is a form of punitive sentence in which a legal officer, such as a judge, has little or no control over a sentence that is being carried out as punishment for a crime, but must instead give a compulsory sentence. These types of convictions can be strongly contested by both legal professionals and defendant advocates as they allow no leeway for specific factors and circumstances relating to a particular case. Proponents of the minimum sentence point to this as an advantage of the practice and argue that these types of sentences are much more effective as a deterrent to offenders.
A mandatory sentencing law typically states the type of offense for which an offense must be sentenced, with specifics regarding the degree of the offense and whether it should be a misdemeanor or a felony. If these requirements are met, and a person is convicted of the offence, the commissioning judge has no discretion over the sentence to be given to the accused and the mandatory sentence must be passed. Proponents of such practices argue that because judges cannot show mercy or leniency, these practices work to enforce the impartiality of the legal system. They argue that with mandatory sentencing, everyone who commits the same crime receives the same punishment.
Those who oppose mandatory sentencing, however, point to the fact that this practice prevents the judge from doing his or her job properly and does not allow the particular circumstances of a crime to affect punishment. Opponents use overcrowded prisons as an example of how mandatory sentencing has created a greater influx of prisoners, as courts are unable to decide on appropriate punishments for convicted defendants and must defer to mandatory sentences. Some judges and legal officials alike have protested mandatory sentencing laws as impeding the service of true justice and requiring blind enforcement.
Opponents argue that these types of laws can impose particularly harsh punishments on people who become victims of circumstances. For example, some regions use the amount of drug found on a person to indicate whether that person was in possession of the illicit substance for personal use or for distribution. With a drug such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), this is often determined by the total weight of the paper the drug is contained on, and not just the amount of the drug itself.
Situations have arisen where someone had a small amount of such a drug, but it was on a particularly large amount of paper, requiring that person to be charged with possession with intent to distribute. This charge, in some areas, carries a mandatory minimum sentence which can be several decades. In this case, someone who broke a minor law and was willing to accept punishment was given a much harsher sentence and the judge could not use his discrepancy. Opponents of compulsory sentencing see this type of situation as a total condemnation of such legal practices; advocates, however, note that the person never should have broken the law in the first place.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
