NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you not familiar with them, mandatory minimum sentences are a fairly recent development in the US judicial system. Mandatory minimum sentences are laws passed by the legislature (usually at a state level) that force judges to sentence those convicted of a certain crime to at least x amount of time (usually a large amount like 20 years).

Proponents say that it helps make sentencing more fair by lessening the differences between sentences given to different criminals for the same or similar crimes. They also claim that it prevents judges from giving out excessively lenient sentences. These types of laws are typically passed for crimes such as rape or child pornography both because lawmakers feel they need to make sure people convicted of those crimes recieve a harsh sentence, and because it is good for their image to be able to say they are tough on guns, tough on child predators, tough on rapists (or whatever the law is tough on).

Those opposed point to a number of cases where a person was convicted for a very minor violation and is now serving an excessively harsh sentence because the judge had no choice but to give them the minimum. For example, more than one case has surfaced of a slightly older adult being sentenced to 10+ years in prison for having sex with his slightly underage girlfriend. Critics also site the political rather than logical nature of most of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have been passed, and they point out that judges should have the freedom to give out a punishment that fits the crime without being so constricted.

Proponents of these laws typically include victim's rights groups and those who dont trust judges. Those opposed include legal professionals, civil rights groups, and Chief Justice Rhenquist.

Three strikes laws are the most extreme example of these types of laws. In three strikes laws a person convicted of a felony for the third time must automatically recieve a life sentence regardless of the crime.

For those of you not familiar with them, mandatory minimum sentences are a fairly recent development in the US judicial system. Mandatory minimum sentences are laws passed by the legislature (usually at a state level) that force judges to sentence those convicted of a certain crime to at least x amount of time (usually a large amount like 20 years).

Proponents say that it helps make sentencing more fair by lessening the differences between sentences given to different criminals for the same or similar crimes. They also claim that it prevents judges from giving out excessively lenient sentences. These types of laws are typically passed for crimes such as rape or child pornography both because lawmakers feel they need to make sure people convicted of those crimes recieve a harsh sentence, and because it is good for their image to be able to say they are tough on guns, tough on child predators, tough on rapists (or whatever the law is tough on).

Those opposed point to a number of cases where a person was convicted for a very minor violation and is now serving an excessively harsh sentence because the judge had no choice but to give them the minimum. For example, more than one case has surfaced of a slightly older adult being sentenced to 10+ years in prison for having sex with his slightly underage girlfriend. Critics also site the political rather than logical nature of most of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have been passed, and they point out that judges should have the freedom to give out a punishment that fits the crime without being so constricted.

Proponents of these laws typically include victim's rights groups and those who dont trust judges. Those opposed include legal professionals, civil rights groups, and Chief Justice Rhenquist.

Three strikes laws are the most extreme example of these types of laws. In three strikes laws a person convicted of a felony for the third time must automatically recieve a life sentence regardless of the crime.

Actually, it isn't that new, we've been doing sentancing requiremnts as part of state code for decades. Each Title 18 charge (Criminal) carries a minimum and maximum sentence. And judges are presented with "sentencing guidelines" which further levels the playing field.

Also we have a 3 strike system in place.... Repeat offenders, at the time of their third repeat offense for a felony, are given a life sentence... Regardless of the Class of the crime.

Actually, it isn't that new, we've been doing sentancing requiremnts as part of state code for decades. Each Title 18 charge (Criminal) carries a minimum and maximum sentence. And judges are presented with "sentencing guidelines" which further levels the playing field.

Also we have a 3 strike system in place.... Repeat offenders, at the time of their third repeat offense for a felony, are given a life sentence... Regardless of the Class of the crime.

Who is "we"?

Doesn't mandatory minimums sort of suggest that we do not have any faith in a Judge's ability to decide whether a punishment fits the crime? There may be extenuating circumstances in one case or another that may warrant (in the presiding Judge's view) a sentence that is less than the mandatory minimum.

Who is "we"?
California. What a great state, ID'NIT?

California. What a great state, ID'NIT?

No. Not at all.

Yes.
But not how it's used in US.
There should be some min and max sentencies for most of the crimes. Life is the minimum for murder (which means about 14 years in Finland) but not every killing is a murder.
It doesn't have to be a large amount. The minimum sentence for some crime could be 3 months. In my country we have min and max sentencies for every punishable crime and I think it's a good thing. But obviously it doesn't work in US.

edit. I just checked the min-max limitations in Finland for different killings
murder: Life (usually about 14 years before parole)
killing: 8-12 years
eh..deathing :D : 4-10 years
gross manslaughter: 4 months-6 years
manslaughter (e.g. car accident): max 2 years

Who is "we"?

Commonwealth of Virginia...

If it's done properly I'm all for it. In the UK we had the example of a paedophile who commited a sex attack on a young girl (She was 10 at the oldest, though I think younger). He got 4 years, out in 2. He reoffended alright, and this time he killed his next victim. When judges give out these sorts of sentences, I don't have any faith in them. If they're not willing to hand out proper sentences then they need to be reigned in. However, it's important not to go too far and give people ridiculously long sentences for the pettiest of crimes. I wouldn't want a California situation.

Here's the problem with that 3 strikes things.

I get caught shop lifting an expensive watch when Im 18. Strike one.

I drove while slightly over the limit a few months later. (since Im not yet 21, the one beer I drank got me a felony conviction due to zero tolerance laws). Strike two.

20 years later, I am now a mature and responsible adult with strong political views. I get arrested in an act of civil disobedience for blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic. Strike three.

I now have a life sentence for having done a couple of stupid things when I was younger and for expressing my political views as an adult. The good part? I am now considered a political prisoner by a large number of people and bring a great deal of attention to the injustice of this law. The bad part? Im still going to die in prison for these minor infractions.

Yes but often the sentences are/can be too harsh or restricitive.
If you decide every one convicted of murder must serve twenty years, there will be cases where the criminal does not deserve 20 years.
Theft, Rape, Paedophilia, Child Molestation, Fraud should have mandatory minimum sentences.
Not that thieves and fraudsters are in the same class as rapists, but there is no real defence for the above crimes that precludes jail exemption.
A murder can be a self defence case where excessive force was used in protecting yourself. Also a murder case could be a mother shooting a man that molested her child. Still murder, but jail would have no purpose.

Yes.
But not how it's used in US.
There should be some min and max sentencies for most of the crimes. Life is the minimum for murder (which means about 14 years in Finland) but not every killing is a murder.
It doesn't have to be a large amount. The minimum sentence for some crime could be 3 months. In my country we have min and max sentencies for every punishable crime and I think it's a good thing. But obviously it doesn't work in US.

Which is how VA does it. Each "Crime" has it's own sentencing requirements coded into the Title offense.... + that of a guide based upon severity "Class"

Felonies are Class 1 to 6, 1 being the highest, 5 the lowest.

Class 1 (Capital) carries a minimum of life maximum of death; and a fine of not more than $100,000.00

Class 2, 20 years to life. Fine of not more than $100,000.00

Class 3, 5 years to 20 years. Fine of not more than $100,000.00

Class 4, 2 years to 10 years. Fine of not more than $100,000.00

Class 5, 1 years to 10 years. Or, of not more than 12 months in conjunction with a $2,500.00 fine.

Class 6, 1 years to 5 years. Or, of not more than 12 months in conjunction with a $2,500.00 fine.

Any felony, regardless of normal class, at the time where it is the same repeat offense for the third time, is treated as a Class 1, non capital offense, and punishable by a life sentence.

Misdemeanors, class 1 - 4:

Class 1, maximum sentence of 12 months. Fine of not more than $2,500.00

Class 2, No more than 6 months, no more than $1,000.00 fine.

Class 3, No jail time, no more than $500.00 fine.

Class 4, No jail time, no more than $250.00 fine.

The classification requirements are codified into each Title offense. Along with a sentencing guideline for the offense in the particular code. Both the classification, and guideline is used by the court to determine sentence by the judge or jury.

Here's the problem with that 3 strikes things.

I get caught shop lifting an expensive watch when Im 18. Strike one.

I drove while slightly over the limit a few months later. (since Im not yet 21, the one beer I drank got me a felony conviction due to zero tolerance laws). Strike two.

20 years later, I am now a mature and responsible adult with strong political views. I get arrested in an act of civil disobedience for blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic. Strike three.

I now have a life sentence for having done a couple of stupid things when I was younger and for expressing my political views as an adult. The good part? I am now considered a political prisoner by a large number of people and bring a great deal of attention to the injustice of this law. The bad part? Im still going to die in prison for these minor infractions.

Felonies, not misdemeanors.

The three strike laws (and mandatory minimum sentencing) are all pretty bad ideas, in my opinion. Judges and (more so) policemen are given leniency for YOUR benefit. For example, they may only give you a warning for a broken tail light rather than writing you a ticket. That helps you. I had one (in VA) give me a "failure to obey a highway sign" rather than the 15+mph over the limit ticket that I deserved because it was my first ticket. There are strict maximums they can go to, but with no mandatory minimums (almost always higher than previously listed in the statute) there is room for leniency based on mitigating factors.

For example, you're pulled over and arrested for DUI. But you were only a little over the legal limit and you were driving your friend who was bleeding profusely to the hospital because you were the only one around. There are obviously better examples.

As for three strikes laws... they're just dumb. Part of the legal code for people convicted of felonies includes a caveat that hence forth, most types of misdemeanors commited are automatically raised to the level of a felony. So, you broke into someone's house and later you stole a car. Ten years later you're trying to go straight but you're having trouble. You're starving constantly. You steal a slice of pizza from a pizza guy's delivery. Misdemeanor becomes felony, felony becomes third strike, third strike becomes life in prison. You're doing life for stealing a slice of pizza. Something like this has actually happened. Judges are given the ability to be lenient to prevent stupidity like this from happening.

Generally, I would say I am opposed to such laws. Sentencing should be carried out on a case-by-case basis, as very few cases are as similar as people would make out.

Then I read things like the story about the retarded man beaten and left for dead in Texas - a man who can no longer walk without help - where the 3 young adults (all over 18) involved got nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and I think mandatory sentencing can be a good thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/13/t...g.ap/index.html

...
A murder can be a self defence case where excessive force was used in protecting yourself. Also a murder case could be a mother shooting a man that molested her child. Still murder, but jail would have no purpose.
It's not murder. The first is manslaughter. ->up to 2 years in jail.
The second is harder...that could be murder, but my guess qould be killing and 8 years in jail (4 til parole as a first timer)

Hmmm. what you mean no purpose? You think that it would be alright if everyone would just take the law in their own hands? What if the mother decides to torture this man a little before she shoots him?

Which is how VA does it. Each "Crime" has it's own sentencing requirements coded into the Title offense.... + that of a guide based upon severity "Class"


Sounds reasonable. Except the 3 strikes which is idiotic.

LoL, I just had to become the only one who voted "You're an idiot" cuz I felt like being different :)

The three strike laws (and mandatory minimum sentencing) are all pretty bad ideas, in my opinion. Judges and (more so) policemen are given leniency for YOUR benefit. For example, they may only give you a warning for a broken tail light rather than writing you a ticket. That helps you. I had one (in VA) give me a "failure to obey a highway sign" rather than the 15+mph over the limit ticket that I deserved because it was my first ticket. There are strict maximums they can go to, but with no mandatory minimums (almost always higher than previously listed in the statute) there is room for leniency based on mitigating factors.
...

I don't think mandatory minimum sentence has nothing to do with such minor misdemeanors. And if you think it has, the mandatory minimum sentence can always be a warning.

Maybe the compromise here would be that mandatory sentencing would hold, unless the judge could give an appropriate reason (looked at by a higher panel of judges, perhaps) for not adhering to it. There are always going to be cases that are exceptions - and not having any leeway screws people over.

This way, an 18 year old who has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend wouldn't necessarily get the automatic 10 years in prison for child molestation, but the 30 year old who sleeps with a 12 year old sure as hell would.

For those of you not familiar with them, mandatory minimum sentences are a fairly recent development in the US judicial system. Mandatory minimum sentences are laws passed by the legislature (usually at a state level) that force judges to sentence those convicted of a certain crime to at least x amount of time (usually a large amount like 20 years).

Proponents say that it helps make sentencing more fair by lessening the differences between sentences given to different criminals for the same or similar crimes. They also claim that it prevents judges from giving out excessively lenient sentences. These types of laws are typically passed for crimes such as rape or child pornography both because lawmakers feel they need to make sure people convicted of those crimes recieve a harsh sentence, and because it is good for their image to be able to say they are tough on guns, tough on child predators, tough on rapists (or whatever the law is tough on).

Those opposed point to a number of cases where a person was convicted for a very minor violation and is now serving an excessively harsh sentence because the judge had no choice but to give them the minimum. For example, more than one case has surfaced of a slightly older adult being sentenced to 10+ years in prison for having sex with his slightly underage girlfriend. Critics also site the political rather than logical nature of most of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have been passed, and they point out that judges should have the freedom to give out a punishment that fits the crime without being so constricted.

Proponents of these laws typically include victim's rights groups and those who dont trust judges. Those opposed include legal professionals, civil rights groups, and Chief Justice Rhenquist.

Three strikes laws are the most extreme example of these types of laws. In three strikes laws a person convicted of a felony for the third time must automatically recieve a life sentence regardless of the crime.

I support minimum sentencing laws in principle, though I think many of the specifics we have in place are stupid. For instance, I believe all drugs should be 100% legal, so all minimum sentences for drug convictions are pure crap. "Three strikes laws" often send people to jail for life for selling or owning marijuana, which is sickening and stupid (in my opinion). I believe the age of consent should be 15 years old, and that a three year window should be in effect; the only way an over-18 person could be convicted would be by having sex with somebody 14 or younger, because an 18 year old with a 15 year old would be within the 3 year window.

On the other hand, I think a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole should be imposed for any murder 1, murder 2, or rape conviction. I believe the ONLY plea bargain option should be to get a possibility of parole; a life sentence for these crimes should be the only sentence. I support "three strikes" for all violent felonies and most non-violent felonies.

I live in a country where minimum sentences are used for every felony. The concept is to make the minimum sentence relatively low, but at least somewhat punishing. E.g. forgery of banknotes carries at least one year. If you go fotocopy a single note and try to pay with that, its one year in prison for you, parole or not lies with the judge to decide. If you operate a complete printing outfit and distribute hundreds of thousands or millions, its up to 15 years. Nearly everytime someone gets minimum there are mitigating circumstances, normal is around half between min and max.

Sounds reasonable. Except the 3 strikes which is idiotic.

3 Strikes was developed due to high levels or repeat offenders....

People who get small felonies, are given leniency, and then within 8 months of release, are right back in prison for the same crime.

In all, about 97% of persons released from prison have returned within 1 year. About 80% within 5 years.... For the exact same offense... Most of it occurs while IN Probationary programs, and work-release programs subsequent to prison; in the Commonwealth.

It's a sad tale that people who have been convicted of a crime, and served their sentence, are more concerned, after their relase, of trying to not get caught at it again, than working to better their own lives, and not commit the crimes in the first place.

Sure, it might be tough; but these people had programs open to them; but they end up with three strikes because of their own lack of personal responsibilitiy, even with the capability and resources given to them subsequent to release.

I approve of the acts the Commonwealth has taken.

Felonies, not misdemeanors.

The last one is a felony everywhere due to a federal law dictating such. The others are felonies in most places. Note I said a watch because that can be expensive enough to classify as a felony. Drunk driving is a felony nearly everywhere. Blocking an abortion clinic entrance is a felony by federal law.

In the Australian State we've always had a mandatory minimum sentence for most crimes and it has worked well enough for us, however one state (The Northern Territory) took it a little too far and instituted a '3-strike' law where if you broke the law three times you would go to jail. This law was eventually repealed when it started resulting in jail terms for people who had done very petty crimes, most noteably the teenage boy who was sent to jail for stealing a pencil.

I get caught shop lifting an expensive watch when Im 18. Strike one.

Define expensive? Shop Lifting in the Commonwealth is a misdemeanor, unless the value of the object is more than $200.00. So it could be a felony. (18.2-95)


I drove while slightly over the limit a few months later. (since Im not yet 21, the one beer I drank got me a felony conviction due to zero tolerance laws). Strike two.

Even underage drinking, in conjunction with motor vehicle operation is not felonious in the Commonwealth. You would be subject to suspention of licensure for 6 months, ran concurrent with either a 7 day (first offense), 60 day (second offense) or subsequent to hearing date (third offense). (18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, 46.2-391.2)


20 years later, I am now a mature and responsible adult with strong political views. I get arrested in an act of civil disobedience for blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic. Strike three.

In the commonwealth, that would fall under 18.2-119. Where the owner would be required to ask you to leave. You could then be charged with trespassing, a Class 1 Misdemeanor.


I now have a life sentence for having done a couple of stupid things when I was younger and for expressing my political views as an adult. The good part? I am now considered a political prisoner by a large number of people and bring a great deal of attention to the injustice of this law. The bad part? Im still going to die in prison for these minor infractions.

First infraction, possible felony, depending on actual value of item.

Second infraction is a moving violation, not a felony (46.2) in conjunction with civil penalty (under 18.2) neither classified as felonies.

Third is a Class 1 misdemeanor (under 18.2), also not a felony.

Now, however, had you kept stealing those expensive watches... Yes, you could likely be doing life in prison.

[snip]


My example was based on US law where all of those could be felonies depending on the jurisdiction (and the last one could be a felony no matter what your jurisdiction because it falls under PL 103-259).

Just quietly, have any of you talked to anybody who has been in a high security prison before?

I live in a country with minimum sentences as well and I think that it would be a good idea to adopt them in the US as well. Remember, we are talking about MINIMUM sentences. So, normally, these sentences represent the absolute minimum required for any given crime, not a middle or maximum sentence.
I don't know if any of these minimum sentences have yet been decided in the US, but to get back to the case of an adult having sex with a minor, 10 years doesn't sound like a minimum sentence to me.
I'm no lawyer but if I remember correctly, in Germany you might get away with a fine, depending on the age of the minor and the consent. Maximum would be something in the area of 10 years.
The advantage of minimum and maximum sentences in my opinion would be that sentences would automatically be dealt out fairer, the judge would still have to decide what kind of offense was comitted, and he would have to decide the exact sentence, but the sentences couldn't vary as much any more.

Just quietly, have any of you talked to anybody who has been in a high security prison before?

Yeah, but what does that have to do with this thread.

Just quietly, have any of you talked to anybody who has been in a high security prison before?

Prison, yes. High security, no. Why?

Yeah, but what does that have to do with this thread.

Well the thread involves reoffending and things, and I was just pointing out the amount that you can learn about commiting crimes from being in prison. a guy I talked to went from knowing nothing about cars to knowing how to break into them, hotwire, drive off and strip them for parts from talking to other people. When people come out from short sentances, all they've learnt is how to be better criminals. Then people start wondering why reoffending is so high.

It depends. I think there should be minimum sentenced for very serious crimes, but the way that those sort of "very serious crimes" are determined is fucked up a lot of the time. For example, in a state like Oregon where age of consent is 18, you have a whole fucking lot of Class A misdemeanors and a handful of Class C felonies going on right under your noses under the loose banner of "rape" based only on age, even if valid consent is otherwise unequivocably given. I think that child rapists and people like that should get thrown in jail for a very long time, but is an autistic 18 year old guy having consensual sex with his (emotionally and physically) mature 14 year old girlfriend a child rapist? Of course not. Also there is the annoying fact that in a lot of cases, one less-than-legal act can fall under the scope of many different statutory crimes and I assume that the person can be prosecuted for any or all of them, even though there was only one act.

Well the thread involves reoffending and things, and I was just pointing out the amount that you can learn about commiting crimes from being in prison. a guy I talked to went from knowing nothing about cars to knowing how to break into them, hotwire, drive off and strip them for parts from talking to other people. When people come out from short sentances, all they've learnt is how to be better criminals. Then people start wondering why reoffending is so high.

In some cases that is true, in other cases all they learned was that what they did was not worth it and they never want to go back there again. In other cases they obtain a degree while in prison. In other cases they find their faith in prison. In some cases they just learn how to play chess very well while in prison. Examples are useless, show me some studies linking the length of a prison term to recidivism rates and Ill believe you. Even if this turned out to be true (which we have no indication is the case), it points to a problem in the prison system that needs to be fixed, not a problem in sentencing.

It depends. I think there should be minimum sentenced for very serious crimes, but the way that those sort of "very serious crimes" are determined is fucked up a lot of the time. For example, in a state like Oregon where age of consent is 18, you have a whole fucking lot of Class A misdemeanors and a handful of Class C felonies going on right under your noses under the loose banner of "rape" based only on age, even if valid consent is otherwise unequivocably given. I think that child rapists and people like that should get thrown in jail for a very long time, but is an autistic 18 year old guy having consensual sex with his (emotionally and physically) mature 14 year old girlfriend a child rapist? Of course not. Also there is the annoying fact that in a lot of cases, one less-than-legal act can fall under the scope of many different statutory crimes and I assume that the person can be prosecuted for any or all of them, even though there was only one act.

Isn't there some legal rule that says you can only be punished ONCE for each crime you comit? I know for a fact that such a rule exists in Germany... There may be different charges, but all of them have to be punished with one single sentence...

Isn't there some legal rule that says you can only be punished ONCE for each crime you comit? I know for a fact that such a rule exists in Germany... There may be different charges, but all of them have to be punished with one single sentence...

There is. But it means that you cannot be prosecuted more than once for a particular crime. It does not mean that you cannot be prosecuted on multiple charges stemming from one action. For example, if you had oral sex with your 16 year old girlfriend and you are 18, you can be prosecuted for both rape and sodomy (two separate crimes), and maybe other things like corruption of a minor. If you kill someone by shooting them you can be prosecuted for murder as well as firearms violations.

My example was based on US law where all of those could be felonies depending on the jurisdiction (and the last one could be a felony no matter what your jurisdiction because it falls under PL 103-259).

Jurisdiction in this case defines code. Since I am reffering to 3 strikes under Virginia jurisdiction, only Virginia Code applied.

As for PL 103-259 (18USC-248) and according to (b) it is a misdemeanor (less than one years confinement)

According to c-2, the US can only persue direct charges in criminal nature, if it is by violence in result of injury. Otherwise it falls under c-1, whereby it is handled in civil-suit from the victim.

So, assuming your situation occured. The clinic or person attempting entry can press charges upon you, under 18USC-248(a-1), by powers invested in 18USC-248(c-1-A), the court must act in accordance with 18USC-248(b), however by block text of b, they may only press charges as misdemeanor in absense of physical assult (by obstruction only). Thus, this would still not be a "third" strike for you, unless of course you assulted the person in question, causing physical harm upon them, in which case it is handled by 18USC-248(c-2), and tried as a felony.

So unless you actually caused, or threatened to cause physical injury; it is not a felony. Or if it is a subsequent act under 18USC-248.

However, this applies only to direct blocking of entrance... If it is merely a picket, then under 18USC-248(d) it may not be tried under this section.

If you're using physical force, subsequent to other felony acts in the past. And are taken under this title and section, using physical force to block entrance, when there were perfectly legal alternatives; then I see no reason why you shouldn't be jailed for life. Hell, why should I give a damn about you? You obviously can't operate in a proper manner in society, or respect the rights of others, and have a history of disrespecting the rights of those around you, to their property and their person.

Your second offense, Underage DUI has no federal statute. 23USC-410 places granting authority in the Federal code for states. But makes no provision for offenses (which exist by each state). DUI, underage or not, fall under Highway Safety Title offenses (not Criminal Title) in each state. There is no "federal law" against underage DUI... They are tried by state districts, not federal district.

Yay I am the only other so far … I am for mandatory minimum sentences with the proviso of a clear legal ability to waver if the sentence is not fitting the situation