Federal Sentences in Drug Offence Research Assignment (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name:
Course Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Institution:
Date:
A drug has two dimensions of view. First as a medicinal substance. There is either natural or artificial obtainence of the drug. The main objectives of taking drugs are to treat, prevent disease or lessen pain. Secondly, as an illegal substance. This is an addictive substance that often triggers changes in behavior and perception. Mostly is taken for effects. This document discuses drug as illegal substances. Drug offences originate from the abuse of drugs. Most of the prisoners in the United States are as a result of drug crimes. The culprits are drug users, sellers or addicts besides other criminals such as murderers, rapists and robbers.
In the American history, the federal mandatory sentences have been put in place to curb this drug crime but always in vain. This has raised great concern in the different government reigns over the years. Each president has tried their ways to deal with the situation but still the drug crimes have never been contained. The Congress established mandatory minimum prison sentences regarding crime rates in 1951. It was sponsored by Hale Boggs (D-La.) and hence named after him. For the aim of sentencing, the act hardly differentiated drug users and traffickers. It imposed a minimum of 2 to 5 years incarceration sentence. An objective was to isolate and quarantine the addicts for treatment to avoid the contagious spreading of the behaviors. CITATION Cau97 \l 1033 (Caulkins, 1997.)
The results of this endeavor did not promise any reduction in drug crimes. On the contrary, drug offences increased in great folds. In 1969, President Richard Nixon assumed office. Highly determined to curb the intensified drug crimes, he withdrew all the mandatory federal sentences regarding the same. Over and above that, the Congress and the administration made a deal that stressed rehabilitation as the key solution to the problem. Both the Democrats and Republicans extolled this Act in the Congress. The support for the repeal of the mandatory sentence for drug crimes assisted those who were vying for elections at that time CITATION Dou93 \l 1033 (McDonald & Carlson, 1993) though there is no tangible evidence about the same. In the 1980s, the mandatory minimum laws were reinstated again by the Congress. This time with no allowed debate, hearings, study or discussions. The legislation after all those years of existence has failed terribly even today.
Some of the main reasons why there was a repeal in 1970 are: First, no detterence of drug use despite their existence. Also, trafficking climbed into high levels in the United States. Secondly, the laws impacted large and rapid federal and state corrections. Thirdly, lengthy incarceration periods affected families. Parents, spouses and breadwinners’ absence in the family meant serious void and hence indirect costs. Fourthly, the application of the laws is not even, this had an impact on the minorities and resulted in largely different penalties for offenders of equal blame worth. Also, they undermined federalism by converting state offences to federal crimes. CITATION FLe72 \l 1033 (Bailey & Rothblatt, 1972)
The three strikes law is under the high and crime control and law enforcement Act. The law stipulates for life incarceration sentence in case a convicted felon satisfies the following conditions. First, must have past crime records in a federal court over a dire violent felony. Secondly, if the victim has at least two previous convictions in state courts. One of the crime must be severe and extreme and the other might involve serious indulgence in drugs crimes. The statute defines a serious violent crime as including; manslaughter, murder, sex offenses, robbery, kidnapping plus any other offense punishable by at least ten years. This must include the use of force or a significant risk of the same. CITATION Unj05 \l 1033 (law, 2005)
Three strikes laws incorporate crimes destined to posing threats to human life. It enumerates other non-qualifying crimes that pose no danger to human life. These crimes include: arsons and unarmed robbery. An arson may not be classified as a three strike statute breaker if the defendant can establish a vivid and convincing evidence of no human life risks were involved. On the other hand, unarmed robbery crime only qualifies as a three strike sentencing if it included the threat of firearm or any other harming weapon. As a consequent, death was witnessed or encounter of severe body injuries. The way out of this allegations is for the d...