Since the first drug laws in America were passed, they have been rooted in fear, racism, corruption, and lack of substantial information. The first laws against opium passed in the 1890s were targeted at Chinese immigrants, the first laws against cocaine passed in the early 1900s were targeted at black men, the first anti-marijuana laws passed in the early 1900s were targeted at Mexicans, and so on and so forth...
America is and has been at war for decades; beginning with the presidency of Richard Nixon, when he declared a "war on drugs". This war has drastically increased incarceration rates, the presence of federal anti-drug enforcement, and introduced the practice of mandatory minimum sentences.
Mandatory minimum sentences are set laws dictating the bare minimum number of years that one must serve for committing a certain crime. As these laws were introduced during Nixon's War on Drugs, the vast majority of these laws deal with drug-related crimes, but there a select few that deal with other offenses. In other words, if you commit XYZ crime, regardless of the circumstances, you have to serve XYZ years in prison. For example, the mandatory minimum sentence for distributing 5 kg of cocaine is 10 years. At first glance these mandatory minimum sentences may seem like a quick and easy way to deter drug crime, but the facts show that they do much more harm than good. The American justice system is supposed to be based on the principles of fairness and equity, but mandatory minimums do not uphold those principles.
First of all, these sentences are set by Congress, not by judges. In fact, many judges are against mandatory minimum sentences because it doesn't allow for them to consider all the facts and circumstances of a case.
Mandatory minimums, rather, are a "one-size-fits-all" sentence and that is not how it should be. Every case is different and every person is different and they should be treated that way; mandatory minimums do not allow for this. A federal district judge, Mark W. Bennet of Iowa has sentenced "a staggering number of low-level drug addicts to long prison terms." He stated that "this is not justice," but has no other choice than to adhere to the mandatory minimum sentence laws. Since mandatory minimum sentences deal mostly with drug offenses, most of the people they affect are nonviolent.
Mandatory minimum sentences have led to an increased amount of nonviolent, low-level offenders overpopulating the American prison system. Incarceration is not cheap, and the massive amount of people being locked up for long periods of time due to mandatory minimums has had a costly impact on taxpayers.
Not only have mandatory minimums proved to be costly, but they have also proved to be ineffective. These sentences have clearly not served as a deterrent since illicit drugs are easier and cheaper to get than ever.
Historically, drug laws in America have been racist and discriminatory and mandatory minimum sentences have proved to be no different.These sentences disproportionately affect people of color. They are destroying families, breaking apart communities, and perpetuating the cycle of drug abuse and poverty in communities of color.
Behind every mandatory minimum sentence, there is a human life. Every person is more than just a "criminal" or a "drug dealer," they are often non-violent, first-time offenders. They are someone's son, daughter, mother, or father, and they deserve to have all of the facts of their case considered and receive a fair, appropriate sentence.
These mandatory sentences create unfair trials, overpopulate our prisons, do not deter drug crime and cost our taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money, so why not focus on fair trials and fair sentences and preventative and rehabilitative measures against drug abuse?
