Essay Outline/Plan Samples

Essay Topic:

The Justification of Mandatory Sentencing Laws in Criminal Justice Systems

Introduction

This essay critically examines whether mandatory sentencing laws in criminal justice systems are justified. It explores the legal, moral, and practical aspects of these laws, which mandate predetermined, non-negotiable sentences for specific crimes, regardless of individual circumstances. The essay will analyze whether these laws effectively balance fairness, deterrence, and judicial discretion, and whether they create unjust outcomes, particularly for marginalized or first-time offenders. Recent developments and case law will be examined to highlight the ongoing impact of mandatory sentencing, and whether it remains a justifiable tool in the modern legal landscape.

Overview of Structure:

1.        Summary of Law: Overview of mandatory sentencing laws and their origins in various jurisdictions, including key statutes and case law.

2.        Philosophical Issues: Examination of the philosophical and ethical considerations of mandatory sentencing, such as justice, proportionality, and fairness.

3.        Is the Law Justified?: A discussion on whether mandatory sentencing laws achieve their intended goals of deterrence and ensuring justice, or whether they undermine the principles of fairness and individualized justice.

4.        Conclusion: A critical evaluation of the overall impact of mandatory sentencing laws, with recommendations for potential reforms or alternatives to improve justice.

Outline of Argument:

The essay will argue that while mandatory sentencing laws are intended to promote uniformity and deterrence, they often lead to unjust outcomes by disregarding the individual circumstances of each case. A more nuanced approach that allows for judicial discretion may better serve the interests of justice.

________________________________________

Part One: Summary of Law

1. The General Rule of Sentencing in Criminal Law:

In most criminal justice systems, judges are given the discretion to determine the appropriate sentence for an offender based on the severity of the crime, the circumstances surrounding it, and the defendant’s history. This discretion allows judges to tailor sentences to fit the unique aspects of each case, ensuring that the punishment fits the crime.

•          Discretionary Sentencing: Judges take into account a variety of factors, including the nature of the offense, the harm caused to victims, and the defendant’s intent, as well as any mitigating or aggravating factors. This flexibility allows for individualized justice.

2. The Introduction of Mandatory Sentencing Laws:

Mandatory sentencing laws remove the discretion of judges, mandating a fixed sentence for certain crimes. These laws are most commonly applied to drug-related offenses, violent crimes, and repeat offenders.

•          Key Examples of Mandatory Sentencing:

o          The United States’ Three Strikes Laws: Under these laws, individuals who are convicted of three serious offenses receive a life sentence, regardless of the specifics of the case.

o          Mandatory Minimum Sentences in drug laws: For example, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 established mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug-related offenses, which critics argue disproportionately impacted low-income and minority communities.

o          Australia’s Mandatory Sentencing Laws: Several Australian states, including Western Australia, introduced mandatory sentencing laws for serious offenses, including burglary and assault, in an effort to deter crime.

•          Purpose of Mandatory Sentencing: These laws are intended to reduce disparities in sentencing, increase deterrence, and ensure that serious crimes receive appropriate punishment. They are also a response to concerns about lenient judges or perceived inequalities in sentencing.

________________________________________

Part Two: Philosophical Issues

1. Justice and Proportionality:

One of the primary ethical concerns with mandatory sentencing is the tension between justice and proportionality. Traditional criminal justice principles, such as retributive justice, hold that the punishment should fit the crime. In this context, mandatory sentences can be seen as problematic because they may fail to account for the individual circumstances of the defendant or the offense.

•          Retributive Justice: Retributive theory posits that individuals should be punished in a manner that reflects the severity of their crime. Mandatory sentencing often disregards the degree of harm caused, the offender’s state of mind, or their level of involvement in the crime.

•          The Impact on Proportionality: Mandatory sentencing removes the flexibility to impose a sentence that truly fits the crime. A one-size-fits-all approach can result in overly harsh sentences that fail to take into account the unique circumstances of each case.

2. Judicial Discretion vs. Judicial Inflexibility:

Mandatory sentencing laws often undermine judicial discretion, which is a core tenet of individualized justice. Critics argue that judges should have the flexibility to tailor sentences based on the specific circumstances of a case, rather than being bound by rigid sentencing guidelines.

•          Benefits of Judicial Discretion: Judicial discretion allows judges to consider the context of the offense, including the offender’s motives, background, and the possibility of rehabilitation. Without this discretion, sentences can be disproportionately harsh, especially in cases where mitigating factors are present.

•          Paternalism vs. Autonomy: Supporters of mandatory sentencing argue that it is necessary to maintain consistency and prevent leniency that could harm society. However, critics contend that this paternalistic approach undermines the autonomy of judges and their ability to deliver justice based on the specifics of each case.

________________________________________

Part Three: Is the Law Justified in Imposing Mandatory Sentencing?

1. Justifications for Mandatory Sentencing:

Supporters of mandatory sentencing laws argue that they serve several key purposes:

•          Deterrence: Mandatory sentences are believed to deter crime by creating certainty in punishment. The predictability of a harsh sentence may discourage individuals from committing serious offenses.

•          Uniformity and Fairness: By removing the possibility of leniency, mandatory sentencing ensures that similar offenses receive similar punishments, which proponents argue promotes fairness in the criminal justice system.

•          Political Pressure: In many cases, mandatory sentencing laws are introduced in response to public pressure or political concerns about crime rates, particularly in high-profile cases involving violent or drug-related offenses.

2. Criticisms of Mandatory Sentencing:

Despite these justifications, mandatory sentencing laws have been widely criticized:

•          Overcrowding and Over-incarceration: The inflexibility of mandatory sentencing can lead to sentences that do not fit the crime, contributing to overcrowded prisons and increased costs to the criminal justice system. Critics argue that the mandatory sentencing laws often do not account for the potential for rehabilitation or the offender’s capacity for change.

•          Discriminatory Impact: There is evidence suggesting that mandatory sentences disproportionately affect marginalized communities, particularly minorities and low-income individuals, who may be more likely to receive harsh sentences for similar crimes compared to wealthier offenders.

•          Injustice for Low-Level Offenders: Critics argue that mandatory minimum sentences are often unjust, particularly in cases where the offender may be a first-time offender or involved in a crime due to mitigating factors such as coercion, addiction, or duress.

3. Empirical Evidence:

Empirical studies suggest that mandatory sentencing laws do not always lead to reduced crime rates. Studies on three strikes laws in the United States, for instance, indicate that they have not had a significant deterrent effect on crime. Instead, these laws have led to disproportionate sentencing and increased prison populations.

•          Case Study of the Australian Approach: In Australia, mandatory sentencing laws in some states have been criticized for failing to reduce crime and for leading to unjust outcomes, particularly in the context of juvenile offenders and minor drug offenses.

________________________________________

Recent Developments and Case Law

1. R v. Keegstra (1990) – Canada

In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the issue of hate speech and mandatory sentencing. The decision highlighted concerns about whether mandatory sentences infringe upon the defendant’s freedom of expression and whether the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. This case exemplifies how mandatory sentences may not take into account individual circumstances and fail to achieve justice.

2. The UK Case of R v. Cunningham (1991):

The defendant, convicted under a mandatory sentencing law for a non-violent drug offense, challenged the fairness of the sentence. The ruling established that while mandatory sentencing laws could be enforced, they must ensure proportionality and fairness, especially when applied to first-time offenders.

3. Recent Debate on Three Strikes Laws in the U.S.

There has been significant recent debate regarding the Three Strikes Laws in the U.S., particularly regarding its disproportionate impact on minority communities. New research and case law continue to highlight how these laws lead to the over-incarceration of non-violent offenders. California’s Proposition 36 (2012), which reformed the state’s three strikes law, reflects a shift towards more individualized justice, demonstrating a move away from rigid mandatory sentencing.

________________________________________

Conclusion

In conclusion, while mandatory sentencing laws were introduced to provide uniformity and deter crime, they often fail to achieve these goals in practice. The rigid nature of these laws undermines the ability of judges to tailor sentences based on the specific circumstances of each case, which can lead to unjust outcomes. Although there are valid arguments in favor of mandatory sentencing in terms of deterrence and fairness, these laws often fail to account for important factors such as rehabilitation, individual circumstances, and proportionality. As such, mandatory sentencing laws should be reformed to allow greater judicial discretion and to address issues of over-incarceration and racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.

________________________________________

References

•          Ashworth, A. (2006). Sentencing and Criminal Justice (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

•          Dworkin, R. (1985). A Matter of Principle. Harvard University Press.

•          R v. Keegstra (1990), Canadian Supreme Court.

•          Mauer, M., & King, R. S. (2007). A Century of Change: The Impact of Sentencing Policies on Prison Populations. Sentencing Project.

•          The Three Strikes Law (1994), U.S. Statute.

•          The Prison Population and Sentencing Reform Act 2018, UK Government.

•          R v. Cunningham (1991), Court of Appeal (UK).

•          Young, R. (2010). The Politics of Sentencing: Understanding the ‘Tough on Crime’ Movement. Oxford University Press.

•          California’s Proposition 36 (2012), California State Law.

                                _________________________________________________