Post-Tribune's Ed/Op piece on sentencing reform

http://www.post-trib.com/news/opinion/1415222,edit.article

With a new president and the start of a new Congress, there is renewed hope that the nation can do away with sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine -- and perhaps eliminate mandatory minimum sentences entirely.
It is a travesty that the nation's federal prisons are packed with low-level, first-time nonviolent drug offenders who are serving sentences that don't fit their crimes.

President Obama, while campaigning, said, "... we have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, nonviolent offenders for the better part of their lives -- a decision that's made not by a judge in a courtroom, but by politicians in Washington."

It's nice to see some talk about real change coming out of Washington for a change!

They need to do that. However I see a necessity for minimum sentences for sexual offenders. It's unfair that you can molest and ruin some child's life and be out before the kid even hits adulthood.

paul87920 wrote:

They need to do that. However I see a necessity for minimum sentences for sexual offenders. It's unfair that you can molest and ruin some child's life and be out before the kid even hits adulthood.

I have a real problem with any mandate like this. If a man or woman gets in trouble intended or not, the Judge is then obligated to make the sentance weather or not the Judge believes the crime matches the punishment. Look at some who have been charged with liberties with a minor and ended up marrying that person. They have to reg. as a sexual offender. There was really no crime, lived an honest life, but because the parents, of other official brought up charges that person is labeled for life

But why were mandatory sentences enacted? Because of the public outcry over revovling door justice and multiple offenders never being punished.
I agree that mandatory minimums for first time non-violent offenders need to be abolished, but repeat offenders need to be punished.

Bill B wrote:

But why were mandatory sentences enacted? Because of the public outcry over revovling door justice and multiple offenders never being punished.
I agree that mandatory minimums for first time non-violent offenders need to be abolished, but repeat offenders need to be punished.

Strictly in my opinion only, but they were enacted because the trial was played out in the media, and with out the benefit of the whole trial. That is how the public sees a case. In the media without all the facts, just the ones that tilt the jury of the masses