The Dangers of Mandatory Minimum

Sentences-Aiming Toward Reform

Eli D. Boldt

Final Capstone

Dr. Curtis Vance

John Glenn College of Public Affairs

The Ohio State University

December 11th, 2016

Executive Summary

Twenty years locked behind a prison cell, branded for the rest of their life. This is the

reality for so many low level offenders within the current criminal justice system through its use

of mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums are judicial decisions imposed with

predetermined sentences for certain crimes, removing judicial discretion. Evidence has shown

how this removal of discretion causes undue harm to the criminal justice system and to society as

a whole. This paper will explore many issues raised by the use of mandatory minimums as well

as its effects on not only the criminal who the sentence is imposed upon, but the family members

as well. Mandatory minimum sentences create a cycle of criminality.

Mandatory minimums were first used in 1790, mandating capital punishment for certain

types of crimes. While rarely used through the 1950’s the passage of the Narcotic Control Act of

1956 brought this old policy to the forefront. Its intention was to place lengthier sentences for

drug distribution crimes to serve as a deterrent. Over the next twenty years, mandatory

minimums use again began to fade. However, the 1980’s the “War on Drugs” campaign brought

a resurgence of this sentencing form. Directed at drug and gun offences over 100 mandatory

minimum sentencing provisions were created (Schulhofer). In his journal review Mr. Stephen

Schulhofer reported the Sentencing Commission’s six specific goals for the use of mandatory

minimum sentencing: “assuring just punishment, serve as a more effective deterrent, more

effective incapacitation of serious offenders, elimination of sentence disparities, stronger

inducements for knowledgeable offenders to cooperate in investigation of other criminals, and

judicial economies resulting from increased pressure on defendants to plead guilty” (201).

1

Definition of the Problem

The imposition of mandatory minimum sentences has caused many issues by

regulating how sentences are passed down. These obligatory sentences have placed an

undue burden on the United States Correctional system by mandating lengthy prison

sentences, skyrocketing an already overcrowded prison population. While a goal of

mandatory minimum sentences was to limit discretion, discretion has in fact just been

shifted from the judiciary to the prosecutors. Prosecutors now have the power to exert

great influence on sentencing decisions, simply by filing mandated sentencing charges. This

is leading to longer, harsher, prison sentences. Due to their nature, slight variations in a fact

pattern can cause grave differences in the sentencing on an individual. These “cliff effects”

are placing large weight on certain elements of a crime, while ignoring most others and

causing large sentence disparities. One of the deep-rooted problems with mandatory

minimums is its cyclical effect on crime and incarceration. The long prison sentences and

lack of treatment options make it very difficult for offenders to reintegrate into society post

release. Jobs are hard to obtain, inclusion into stable neighborhoods is difficult, and thus,

many turn back to a life of crime. This too affects the children whose parents are caught up

within the criminal justice system as they too become more likely to engage in criminal

activity. The cyclical nature of mandatory minimums has created a pattern to further involve

someone into the criminal justice system, not to find them a way out. The dangers of these laws

are far-reaching and multi-generational.

2

Evidence

Correctional Burden

Public perception has driven the judicial system and policy makers toward mandatory

minimum statutes. A “get tough” policy is sought by the public to protect against serious

criminals as well to deter others from that type of crime. However, there are many unintended

consequences placed upon the United States Correctional System because of this type of policy.

A cohort study presented by Joan Petersillia, an American criminalist, showed the impact

mandatory minimums could have on the prison population. The study looked at the effects of a

mandated 1-year sentence, 3-year sentence, and a 5-year sentence. Petersillia found that if

offenders were mandated to 5 years with the imposition of new mandatory minimum statutes, we

would see a 450% increase in the prison population. Comparing that to a 1-year mandate, which

would only result in a 50% increase (Petersilia and Greenwood).

The graph below, labeled Figure 1, shows the dramatic increase of the prison population

and its steady assent since the imposition of many of the mandatory minimum statutes in the

1980’s. Prior to the 1980’s the federal prison population stood at about 25,000 inmates, however,

recent numbers have shown an unprecedented growth reaching levels of over 200,000 inmates.

The table below illustrated these trends (Federal Bureau of Prisons). Far more alarming is the

percent increase of the total prison population, both federal and state, over the last twenty years.

Data collected by the United States Department of Justice has shown a 109% increase in prison

population from 1990 to 2010, which currently surpasses over 1.5 million inmates (High Cost

Low Return of Longer Prison Terms). These statutes are placing an undue burden on the United

States Correctional System, where a breaking point will soon be reached.

3

(Federal Bureau of Prisons)

Prosecutorial Discretion

Many opponents of mandatory minimum sentences argue that while it has been a goal to

remove discretion with this type of structure, it has only been shifted. Instead of judicial

discretion, mandatory minimums usher in more prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors have a great

deal of influence through the criminal justice system. It is their job to charge suspects and try the

cases. Thus having a large influence on decisions related to charging, sentence bargaining, and

when to apply mandatory minimums. Since mandatory minimums set a specific length of

sentence, and prosecutors almost solely wield the power determining if one is charged under

these provisions, mandatory minimums allow prosecutors to have great impact on determining

sentence for offenders (Ulmer, Kurlychek, and Kramer).

The policymakers have structured two forms of mandatory minimums, discretionary

mandatories and mandatory mandatories. Discretionary mandatories require judges to impose a

given sentence, however, there is not the same requirement for a prosecutor to bring about such a

mandatory minimum charge just because the facts support it. This allows prosecutors to plea

Figure 1

4

bargain with defendants and elicit information by cutting them a deal and declining to pursue a

mandatory minimum statute. Mandatory mandatories however tie the hands of prosecutors and

hold them accountable to charge based solely on the fact patter on the case provided. These types

of mandatory minimums often lead to longer prison sentences, increased correctional costs,

enhanced deterrence, and a rise in the percentage of cases that will go to trial (Schulhofer).

This increased prosecutorial discretion creates problems in the way pleas are negotiated

to defendants. Prosecutors now have the ability to threaten defendants who wish to exercise a

right to trial with mandatory minimum statutes, which carry longer sentences. This ties the hands

of the defendant to take a plea that they would not under normal circumstances wish to take.

Research has shown that those who do refuse to waive their right to trial receive a sentence three

times longer than if they would have agreed to a deal. This has given rise to 97% of all federal

convictions coming from guilty pleas. Mandatory minimum laws have allowed prosecutors to

use harsh sentences as a means to avoid trial and gain quicker, secured convictions, placing

undue harm to the American system of justice (Barkow).

Cliff Effect

One major problem with the classification of criminals within mandatory minimum

guidelines is known as the “cliff effect.” This problem focuses on the grey area surrounding who

is and who is not punished under the mandatory minimum statutes. A “cliff” is any offender who

just barley is brought into the scope of terms of a mandatory minimum sentence. These types of

offenders are increasingly effected by the rigidly of the mandatory minimum sentence structure.

In the table below we can see two very similar offenders. Both are being tried on a drug

possession, and have similar weights, just 5 grams difference, which is the size of teaspoon.

5

However, the sentence each offender received is dramatically different. Those 5 grams has

placed “Offender 2” within the scope of a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. “Cliffs”

show the disastrous effect relatively small quantities of drugs can have on length of sentence

(Schulhofer).

Offender Type of Crime Weight of Drug SentenceOffender 1 Drug Possession 495 grams Recommended:

27-33 monthsOffender 2 Drug Possession 500 grams Mandatory Minimum

Sentence:5 years

Rigidity

By removing judicial discretion through mandatory minimums, rigidity takes over the

sentencing aspect of the courts. Any factor related to the defendant including criminal history,

moral character, family situation, or any other mitigating factors that might allow a lesser

sentence, must be ignored by the judge. Many researchers point out that this rigidity violates two

core judicial principals, “treating like cases alike, and treating unlike cases differently.”

Mandatory minimums place a requirement to treat unlike cases in a similar way, providing the

same sentence no matter the overarching fact pattern associated with a case (Dolinko).

Further, this rigidity does not allow for more cost effective, and more effective ways in

which to deal with crime reduction. The RAND Corporation preformed a study to determine the

cost effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences on drug crimes. Their research concluded

that these sentences do not provide the necessary deterrence to have effective crime reduction.

Instead, spending more money on arresting, prosecuting, and sentencing drug dealers to

traditional prison sentences would prove more efficient. The research also found that when

6

passing sentence, if the courts were to consider additional factors related to the crime, it would

be easier to identify the true scope of the drug problem, and focus efforts on combating those

issues. However, mandatory minimum sentences halt this process. Progress can only come from

removing the rigid system and allowing judges to pass discretionary sentences (Calukins).

Cyclical Nature

Many of the issues that come from mandatory minimums alone are not disastrous to the

criminal justice system or to the offenders themselves, however, the combination and focus on

incarceration instead of rehabilitation is causing a cyclical nature to crime. One of the most

important steps to breaking from crime is to successfully reintegrate into society post release.

Staying out of prison, gaining employment, and returning to a stable home environment all

contribute to the successful reintegration. However, the way that mandatory minimums are

structured provides a hard path for offenders to overcome.

One product of mandatory minimum sentences is longer, harsher, prison sentences. This

is done as a deterrent effect on crime. However, longer sentences, evidence shows, can increase

the criminality for offenders, thus acting in a counterintuitive fashion. Research has found that

prison is akin to a school for criminals. The longer one is in prison, the more sophisticated they

became by interacting, and learning from one another. As the inmates bond, they forge

relationships, and often times these relationships lead them back to criminal activity post release.

Further, looking at recidivism rates, or the rates at which criminals reoffend, prison sentences,

rather than probation, see the highest rates of recidivism. Longer time served also saw higher

rates of recidivism when comparing sentence length. This evidence shows that while mandatory

7

minimums were aimed to place a deterrent on future crime, the increased length of stay has had

the opposite effect on long-term criminal activity (Song).

Gaining employment after release is one of the hardest obstacles an ex-offender has to

face. However, it is also one of the most important steps to the successful reintegration to society

and away from a life of criminal activity. A job will be able to provide stability, money, shelter,

and responsibility. Mandatory minimums have made this all-important process even more

difficult. In recent studies, potential employers have shown their hesitance to callback those with

criminal records. When comparing applicants with and without criminal records, those with the

mark of a criminal record saw a 50% reduction in callbacks. This has left 60-75% jobless one

year after release. Further hurting their chances, is an increased length of prison time brought by

mandatory minimum sentences. Due to a lack of real world experiences, a criminal record, and

lack of trained skills, the longer one is in prison, the harder it becomes to gain necessary

reintegration skills. Mandatory minimums have hampered the prospects of many post release and

instead of serving to deter crime, have forced many to return to criminal activity (Research and

Reentry and Employment).

Family environment is a main factor in crime. The more stable a home environment and

neighborhood is the more likely one in to not engage in criminal activity. Sadly, 7.3 million

children have at least one parent in prison. Worse yet, 70% of those children are likely to follow

in their parent’s footsteps (Mosley). This problem has been getting worse. Between 1991 and

2007 parents held in a state prison has increased by 79% totaling 357,300 parents, as well

children of incarcerated parents has increased 79%, totaling 761,000 children (Bureau of Justice

Statistics Special Report). This broken family environment has lead to many stress disorders

within younger years of life and many have turned, or will turn to crime (Mosley). Mandatory

8

minimums are increasing the burden placed on children by placing harsher, longer sentences on

the offender, their parents, thus keeping them from achieving as normal of a family atmosphere

as possible. The effects of these harsher sentences are not just effecting one offender, but causing

a multi-generational criminal cycle.

Rehabilitation Efforts

Mandatory minimums focus on incapacitation, or jailing; however, their effects have

caused a major dilemma for policy makers. A shift has occurred away from incarceration and

toward rehabilitation courts for example drug and mental health courts. These specialized courts

instead of imposing harsh, long sentences provide rehabilitative efforts to combat problems

facing crime in society. Mandatory minimums started in part to deter drug crime, as such;

rehabilitation courts focus on placing offenders in treatment options needed for future success.

78% of drug rehabilitation courts have reported influencing a reduction in crime between 8-26%.

This shows a trend away from harsh sanction and towards less intrusive treatment options which

helps provide real solutions for many caught up in the criminal activity (Marlowe).

Alternatives

When determining effective policy, it is important to account for many possible

alternatives. This will allow for most efficient and effective policy outcome. For the purpose of

mandatory minimum policies there are four alternatives that this paper will detail. First, the

Status Quo, or what is already being done. It is important to evaluate if what is being done

currently, is the best policy practice being taken. In this case it would be the further imposition of

9

mandatory minimum sentences, most for drug, gun, and sexually related crimes. Second, this

paper will discuss the effects of the elimination of all mandatory minimum sentences. Third, we

will look at placing mechanisms within the sentencing laws so that mitigating factors can be

considered when determining sentences, and removing some rigidity that comes from the current

structure. Lastly, this paper will look into the Smatter Sentencing Act and its plan to add, but

having limited discretion for sentencing.

Status Quo

This alternative will be keeping existing policy the same, passage on new mandatory

minimum laws and the current ways of prosecuting mandatory minimum sentences. This

alternative will have limited judicial discretion keeping its six goals of: assuring just punishment,

serve as a more effective deterrent, more effective incapacitation of serious offenders,

elimination of sentence disparities, stronger inducements of knowledgeable offenders to

cooperate in investigation of others, and judicial economies resulting from increased pressure on

defendants to plead guilty (Schulhofer).

Elimination of All Mandatory Minimums

This alternative will remove the mandatory minimum statutes as they exist. Its aim will

be to return discretion back to the courts, judge and prosecutor, in order for a less ridged

structure. By doing so mitigating factors will be able to be considered when sentencing, as well

as those who are brought in by the “cliff effect” will not have the same detrimental effects by

such small technical standards (Schulhofer). By eliminating these statutes, specialized courts

references earlier will be able to handle the criminal baring and focus on treatment and

10

rehabilitative sentences if they are determined to be effective in a situation, unbinding them from

the rigid system (Marlowe).

Place Mechanisms for Mitigation Factor Consideration- Downgrading

This alternative will focus on a process called downgrading, or downward deporting. This

option would allow for judges to depart from any mandatory minimum sentence, laid out by

structure, if they believe the punishment is to unjust. This will allow more mitigating factors to

be used when determining sentence, and will increase the judicial discretion. For accountability

purposes, and judge who partakes in downgrading must state the facts and reasoning and issue an

opinion as to why they chose to use this discretion (Bernick and Larkin)

Smarter Sentencing Act- Non-Violent Drug Crimes

This alternative focuses on a plan called the Smarter Sentencing Act. In this, minimal

discretion will be added when imposing sentence. This additional discretion will not be able to

be used on all mandatory minimum states, but only on non-violent drug crime. Those crimes

make up the largest percentage of mandatory minimum statutes. There are further stipulations on

when discretion is allowed as the offender must show a lack of criminal history to be considered

for this departure from sentence. This alternative aims to correct some unjust sentences for drug

offenders, while also keeping the amount of judicial discretion at a minimum (Bernick and

Larkin).

11

Evaluative Criteria

Policy is weighed by factors. When determining the effectiveness of a policy, it is

important to evaluate each alternative by using the same criteria. When determining the best

sentencing alternatives to mandatory minimums it will be important to consider four criteria: cost

associated with each alternative, the effect each alternative will have on the prison population,

the deterrent effect each alternative will have, and the ability to incapacitate serious offenders.

Cost

This criterion will look to examine the budgetary impact each alternative would have.

This will look at the impact placed on the correctional budget, as well as the impact each

alternative would have on court related costs.

Prison Population Effect

This criterion will look at the effect each alternative would have on the increasing prison

population. It is important in an era where the prison population has already grown to

unmanageable rates, to contain the levels.

Deterrence Effect

This criterion will look at the potential deterrent effect each alternative would have on

crime. Deterrence was one of the original goals for the use of mandatory minimum sentences;

however, evidence has show that in many cases, it does not meet its goal. It is important to

provide a policy that can implement deterrence on crime (Schulhofer).

12

Incapacitation of Serious Offender

Another goal of mandatory minimum sentences was to incapacitate serious offenders and

impose the harsher sanctions (Schulhofer). This criterion will examine how each alternative

would be at being able to incapacitate the most serious of offenders to provide public security.

Project Outcomes

Status Quo

Cost: Correctional costs have skyrocketed in the last 20 years, in many cases due to the

extra burden mandatory minimum statutes placed on this institution. The 300% increase

on prisons was in order to combat the extra criminals the prisons are now holding (The

High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms). On average, it costs $29,000 a year to

keep one person in federal prison. This combined with the facts that we are incarcerating

more people, and placing them in prison for longer periods of time, the costs associated

with mandatory minimum sentences are very high (Annual Determination of Average

Cost of Incarceration).

Prison Population Effect: It should not come as a surprise that when mandatory minimum

sentences are imposed, the prison population rises. Since the inception of mandatory

minimum sentencing statues, prison population in federal prisons has increased from

25,000 in 1980 to well over 200,000 currently. This dramatic increase is placing a large

burden on the correctional system (Federal Bureau of Prisons).

Deterrent Effect: There has been mixed evidence in relation to the deterrent effect

mandatory minimums have on crime. However, for drug crimes especially, research has

13

shown that there are lacking results. Replacement occurs when drug offenders are

removed from the streets, prosecuted, and jailed, and another person takes their place.

This shows that t deterrent effects are lacking for one of the offenses mandatory

minimums seek to contain, drug offenses (Bernick and Larkin).

Incapacitation of Serious Offenders: Due to the nature of offenses mandatory minimum

statutes effect, they do have great impact on the incapacitation of the most serious

offenders (Schulhofer). This is one of the original six goals of mandatory minimum

statutes. This alternative makes incapacitating these offenders for longer periods of times

a requirement.

Elimination of All Mandatory Minimums

Cost: If mandatory minimum sentences were eliminated, new sentencing options would

become available. The increased discretion will allow courts to focus on the rehabilitative

aspects of sentencing and move away from the requirement to imprison many low level

offenders. Drug Courts, as mentioned previously, have gained popularity and respect for

their effectiveness. They have also been proven much more cost effective. In place of

using money to jail offenders, money is invested into shorter-term treatment programs

and have higher success rates. For every $1 spent on drug court programs there has been

a reported average of $2.21 dollars in net benefit, making this a very cost effective plan

(Marlowe).

Prison Population Effect: With further sentencing options including treatment homes,

home arrest, and probation, this option would alleviate the high burdens of the increasing

prison populations. This alternative would allow those who could be aided by different

14

options to gain access to those instead of mandating a prison stay for many who have

committed lower level, non-violent crimes (Song).

Deterrent Effect: This option does not limit the courts ability to deter crime. While

mandatory minimums mandated harsher sentences, this option does not remove the

ability to impose those sanctions, when needed. As mandatory minimums are not serving

to deter drug crimes this option allows for different avenues to pursue new deterrent

effects (Bernick and Larkin).

Incapacitation of Serious Offenders: As with the deterrent effects, while this option

would remove the mandate to severely punish more serious offenses, the court still has

the ability to incapacitate serious offenders using increased discretion. The options the

court has have expanded, but they continue to have options at their disposal to incarcerate

violent criminals who pose greatest risk to society, for long periods of time. Removing

the mandate does not remove the ability to keep communities safe from these types of

offenders. Data collected has also shown that many who would be affected by the

removal of mandatory minimum sentences, would be non-violent criminals. That means

that the shorter prison sentences that would likely be seen, would have no negative

impact on public safety (High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Sentences).

Place Mechanisms for Mitigation Factor Consideration- Downgrading

Cost: This option again would expect to see some reduction in the cost of incarcerating

criminals. If judges use the discretion given to them to downgrade mandatory minimum

sentences, it will allow the courts to invest money, on a smaller scale, into other avenues.

As well, this frees up costs to correctional institutions by incarcerating fewer people

15

(Bernick and Larkin). The uncertainty in this alternative would be to know how often

judges will partake in the downgrading of these sentences.

Prison Population Effect: As well, with the same uncertainty, this criterion depends on

the frequency this new option would be used by the judges. If this practice of

downgrading is used, this could be another important step to relieving the burden placed

on the correctional institution. Finding punishment and sentencing options away from the

already crowded prisons allows more room for serious offenders.

Deterrent Effect: This alternative does not change the effect mandatory minimums have

on deterring crime. In this option mandatory minimum statutes still exist and as such, the

weight the sanctions they hold carries the same weight. This alternative allows for

deviation if factors presented to the court make the mandatory sentence seem to harsh.

Incapacitation of Serious Offenders: Like with the previous alternative, downgrading will

allow for the possibility to remove sanctions if they are believed to be to harsh, but it

does not remove the ability to do so altogether. For serious offenders, the courts will still

have the option, and most cases, the requirement to impose harsh sanctions on some of

the more serious types of crime (Bernick and Larkin).

Smarter Sentencing Act- Non-Violent Drug Crimes

Cost: This option would lessen the cost to the correctional system and the courts. By

allowing downgrading for specific cases, non-violent drug cases, this would lessen the

costs of imprisoning offenders who would receive more specialized help, and have a

decreased likelihood of reoffending with differing treatment and sentencing options

(Song).

16

Prison Population Effect: Without knowing the frequency, this is hard to predict.

However, non-violent drug offenses are the most common mandatory minimum

provision used. This allows then for deviated sentencing options to be used in limited

scope, but effects the largest percentage of cases in which mandatory minimums are

imposed (Bureau of Justice Statistics). This allows for a large potential burden to be lifted

from the correctional system and their increasing prison population (Federal Bureau of

Prisons).

Deterrent Effect: This alternative, like the previous, has the same deterrent effects that

mandatory minimums impose. While there is an option to downgrade, it is very limited in

its scope and only effects drug crimes, in which evidence has shown mandatory

minimums do not produce and substantial deterrent effect (Song).

Incapacitation of Serious Offenders: This alternative would have the same effect on the

incapacitation of serious offenders as the current mandatory minimum statutes. This

alternative only allows downgrading for specific non-violent drug crimes, and as well is

not available to an offender with a past violent conviction (Bernick and Larkin). This

keeps all the mandatory minimum sentence lengths, designed to incapacitate serious

offenders, intact.

Trade-Offs

One major trade off that we will have to take into consideration is the incapacitation of

serious offenders while also being aware of the dangers adding to the prison population would

have to the correctional system within the United States. As well, a reduction in the crime rate

produced by the increasing prison population brought on by mandatory minimums. As the

17

research has shown, longer prison sentences have shown higher recidivism rates that those with

shorter sentences or even probation. This leads to the conclusion that longer sentences do not in

fact reduce crime rates (Song). To reduce the crime rate by 15%, and to keep the prison

population under a more manageable level, shorter prison sentences are needed. For that 15%

reduction, if the average prison sentence is 4 years, below the median for mandatory minimum

sentences, the prison population would increase by 125% (Petersilia and Greenwood). The

evidence shows in order to accomplish both a reduction in crime and to limit the correctional

burden, having the ability to impose shorter sentences is imperative.

Recommendation

Finding fair and appropriate sentencing is an important aspect to making sure that our

criminal justice system works, and works efficiently. After evaluating the criteria and

determining the most effective practices, I recommend the removal of mandatory minimum

statutes. This elimination will provide for more discretion and provide more sentencing options

needed to handle the issues that many of the offenses mandatory minimums seek to combat.

This sentencing alternative provides the most effective solution to many of the problems

mandatory minimum statues have caused. Implementing policies to increase judicial discretion

will allow for many cost saving measures through different sentencing options. Instead of long

imprisonment sanctions, probation and treatment options will now be available. These

sentencing options are much more cost efficient. As well, the increased sentencing options will

have a tremendous impact on alleviating the burden on an increasing prison population. Further

18

sentencing options allow for some types of offenders effected by mandatory minimum sentences

to be placed in alternative options instead to filling up the prisons with low level offenders.

One of the most disastrous effects mandatory minimum sentences have on offenders is

the cyclical nature it places on crime and incarceration. This alternative, by removing the

obligation to impose the harsh prison sentences, allows the system to break that cycle. While

long prison terms have been shown to increase offender’s likelihood to reoffend, the ability for

courts to impose shorter, less rigid sentences allows for the recidivism rate to decline and the

opportunity to reoffend, to drop. As well, these new sentencing options would not place as great

of a “criminal mark” on an offender. Shorter prison sentences allow for greater options for

housing and employment post release. Finding these elements are some of the most important

aspects to reintegration and away from criminal activity. This alternative provides an increased

ability to afford past offenders’ positive change and future opportunities post release and in

connection the ability for society to prosper. Children too will benefit with the increased

discretion afforded to the court. Instead of having a parent incarcerated for 5 years, a mandatory

minimum sentences for a minor drug offense, new treatment options will allow a more stable

home environment. Having a parent present, and providing treatment options to correct the

criminal act, provides a greater chance that the children would not turn to a life of crime

themselves. Breaking this cycle of criminality is one of the most important goals of removing

mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, and this alternative provides the best path to achieve

that goal.

19

Works Cited:

"Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration." Federal Register. N.p., 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.

Barkow, Rachael E. "The Problem With Mandatory Minimum Sentences - NYTimes.com." N.p., 19 Apr. 2012. Web. 16 Nov. 2016

Bernick, Evan, and Paul Larkin. "Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 10 Feb. 2014. Web. 16 Nov. 2016.

"Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report." N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.

Calukins, Jonathan P. "Are Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences Cost-Effective?" Rand, 1997. Web.

Dolinko, David. "Ethical Problems of Mandatory Minimum Sentences." Tikkun 13.2 (1997): 27-31. Web

"Federal Bureau of Prisons." BOP: Population Statistics. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.

Marlowe, Douglas. "Research Update on Adult Drug Courts." National Association of Drug Court Professionals (2010): n. pag. Web.

Mosely, E. "GO KIDS Articles." GO KIDS. N.p., 6 July 2008. Web. 05 Oct. 2016

Petersilia, Joan, and Peter W. Greenwood. "Mandatory Prison Sentences: Their Projected Effects on Crime and Prison Populations." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 69.4 (1978): 604-15. Web.

"Research on Reentry and Employment." National Institute of Justice. N.p., 3 Apr. 2013. Web. 05 Oct. 2016.

Schulhofer, Stephen J. "Rethinking Mandatory Minimums." Wake Forest Law Review 28 (1993): 199-222. Web.

Song, Lin, and Roxanne Leib. "Recidivism: The Effect of Incarceration and Length of Time Served." N.p., Sept. 1993. Web. 5 Oct. 2016’

"The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms." The Pew Center on the States, June 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.

Ulmer, Jeffery T., Megan C. Kurlychek, and John H. Kramer. "Prosecutorial Discretion and the Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Sentences." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 44.4 (2007): 427-58. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

20