Stuck behind bars: mandatory minimum sentences are filling U.S. prisons: are they fair? Are they stopping crime?

When she was 19, Chrissy Taylor made a huge mistake. She helped her boyfriend buy chemicals to make illegal drugs. Federal agents soon caught the couple. Taylor was put on trial and found guilty of manufacturing drugs.

The judge followed the mandatory (required) minimum sentence for Taylor's crime and sentenced her to nearly 20 years in prison.

"At the time, we didn't know what a mandatory minimum was," Bill Boman, Taylor's 74-year-old cousin, told JS. "We're talking about a 19-year-old losing 20 years of her life to prison for doing so little. There are murderers and rapists who serve less time than that."

What are mandatory minimum sentences? They are prison terms required by law for certain crimes. For a particular crime, the judge must hand out at least a minimum amount of prison time. The laws come down especially hard on drug-related crimes.

Some states have a "three-strikes" law. A person who is convicted of three similar felonies (serious crimes such as robbery) goes to prison for 25 years to life. For example, Leandro Andrade was caught shoplifting $150 worth of videotapes. He had been imprisoned for burglary twice before. This third strike--the stolen videotapes--earned him 50 years in prison.

Critics think mandatory minimums are too severe. "If someone breaks the law, there certainly should be a consequence," says Monica Pratt of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM). "But how much time should fit the crime?" FAMM believes judges are the best ones to make that decision, arguing that mandatory minimums take away their power to do so.

But supporters of the harsher sentences believe that mandatory minimums help iron out differences in the justice system. The laws make sure that drug dealers convicted of the same crime--one, say, in Florida, the other in Montana--receive the same punishment.

"You would get a very different sentence for the same offense depending upon which judge you appeared in front of ... and where the offense was," Paul Rosenzweig told Fox News. Rosenzweig is a legal expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Tough on Crime

Mandatory minimum sentences grew out of the War on Drugs in the 1980s. Worried about illegal drug use and drug crime, lawmakers passed tough new laws to punish drug dealers. The laws included long prison terms for people who aided drug dealers, even if they didn't make or sell drugs themselves.

But FAMM's Pratt argues that these laws were more about winning elections than about making wise decisions. "Lawmakers always want to seem tough on crime," she says. "Especially when it's election time."

These "get tough" laws have filled U.S. prison cells. Today, there are about 2.1 million inmates in U.S. prisons--more than in any country in the world. Some 25 percent of prisoners are there for breaking drug laws. And most drug offenders are imprisoned for nonviolent crimes.

Supporters argue that the numbers prove mandatory minimums work. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's statistics, while drug arrests have soared, the crime rates for murder, robbery, rape, property crime, and burglary have decreased since the early 1990s. "I think there's no doubt that increased incarceration has the effect of deterring other criminal conduct," Rosenzweig says. "Our entire system of justice is based on the idea that deterrence works, that prison works."

Another Look

Now, though, some states are taking another look at mandatory minimums. One reason is a lack of money. A slow economy has forced many states to slash their spending and budgets. Keeping a person in prison costs an average of $22,000 a year.

In 2002, Michigan ended mandatory minimum sentencing. The Change saved the state about $41 million in prison costs last year. Michigan state representative Mike Kowall, a Republican, voted for the reforms. "This just gets back to common-sense approaches to crime rather than just locking them up and throwing away the key."

Critics question the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences. A study by the Rand Corporation found that drug treatment programs are cheaper and eight times more effective than prison time in reducing drug-related crime.

Recently, many judges have spoken out about how these sentencing rules block them from doing their jobs. In the past, judges could look at all the evidence when sentencing offenders. How old are they? Is this their first offense? Did they use a weapon or hurt anyone?

A survey by the Federal Judicial Center found that 86 percent of federal judges oppose mandatory minimums. "Mandatory minimum sentences create injustice because the sentence is determined without looking at the particular defendant," says U.S. District Judge J. Spencer Letts. "It can make no difference whether he is a lifetime criminal or a first-time offender."

Chrissy Taylor, now 33, will have spent nearly half her life behind bars before she walks free. Does such punishment go too far--throwing away lives and costing too much? Or is that the best way to battle crime in the U.S.?

Your Turn

THINK ABOUT IT

Do you think mandatory sentences are fair? Are they a good way to reduce crime? Explain.

OBJECTIVES

Students should understand

* Mandatory minimum sentences are prison terms required by law for certain crimes;

* Supporters and critics debate the fairness of mandatory minimum sentences.

TEACHING STRATEGY

Ask students to name some factors that affect the crime rate in their community.

BACKGROUND

Mandatory minimum sentences were first introduced at the federal level in 1986 in an effort to incarcerate drug kingpins. However, a majority of criminals imprisoned for drug-related crimes have been street-level offenders: The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 to uphold the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences by a 5-4 vote in a case known as Harris v. United States.

THINKING SKILLS

COMPREHENSION: What is a "three-strikes" law? (A "three-strikes" law is a mandatory minimum sentence for repeat criminal offenders. In some states, the law calls for a 25-years-to-life prison term for any criminal found guilty of committing his or her third felony crime.)

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: What are some arguments on the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences? (Supporters say that the sentencing laws serve as deterrents to crime and have resulted in a decrease in the national rates for murder, robbery, rape, and other crimes. Critics argue that the laws unfairly punish first-time offenders. They also point out that the arrest rate for drug crimes continues to increase despite the mandatory minimums.)

ACTIVITY

MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: Instruct students to write a persuasive essay that argues for or against mandatory minimum sentences and describes their effectiveness in preventing crime.

STANDARDS

SOCIAL STUDIES, GRADES 5-8

* Power, authority, and governance: How mandatory minimum sentences are used to help reduce drug crime and other criminal offenses.

* Individuals, groups and institutions: How some states debate the cost and effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences.

RESOURCES

PRINT

* Espejo, Roman, Ed. America's Prisons: Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press, 2001). Grades 7-8.

* Jacobs, Thomas A., They Broke the Law-You Be The Judge (Free Spirit Publishing, 2003). Grade 8.

WEB SITE

* U.S. Department of Justice www.usdoj.gov/kidspage/ youth.htm