NCJ Number
186255
Journal
Youth Studies Australia Volume: 19 Issue: 2 Dated: June 2000 Pages: 22-24
Date Published
June 2000
Length
3 pages
Annotation
This article describes 10 arguments against mandatory sentencing.
Abstract
The article claims that imposition of mandatory sentences leads to grave injustices in relation to which groups are most affected, creates major difficulties and problems in the justice process itself, and has many negative social and economic consequences. Arguments against mandatory sentencing include: (1) sentences are often greatly disproportionate to the severity of the offense; (2) the focus on particular kinds of offenses has tended to have a major negative impact upon certain categories of offenders and particular social groups; (3) removing discretion from judges shifts it toward the police and prosecution; (4) the severity of punishment under mandatory sentencing may lead offenders to actively contest charges against them, leading to increased workloads for courts and creating major drains on legal aid services; (5) it may cause erosion of natural justice as part of the plea bargaining process; (6) punishment is not particularly effective as a general deterrent, or even as a deterrent for specific offenders; (7) putting people in prison is expensive; (8) there is little evidence that the policy reduces crime; (9) it does little if anything for victims; and (10) there are less expensive and more effective alternatives to prison.