An argumentative paper about drug sentencing. A paper that argues why mandatory minimum drug sentencing does not work as a tactic in the so-called “war on drugs,” with quotes, facts, and stories of the convicted.
A paper that argues why mandatory minimum drug sentencing does not work as a tactic in the so-called “war on drugs,” with quotes, facts, and stories of the convicted.
“Our judicial system is set up so that one is innocent until proven guilty, and so that the punishment fits the crime. This is part of why many view America as the greatest democracy on earth: our laws and punishments, in comparison to some other countries, seem fair and humane. One would think, then, that a convicted rapist or murderer would spend more time in prison than a first-time drug offender charged with dealing a small amount of marijuana, for example. Naturally, right? Not so fast–today’s mandatory minimum laws, designed to be harsh on all drug offenders, are putting people behind bars for a long time. Spawned by the United States? War on Drugs, these laws leave judges with little choice when sentencing drug offenders, with mandatory minimum sentences for all drug offenders. These laws target everyone from small-scale pot dealers whose clientele consists only of a few friends, to large-scale heroin gangsters. These laws intend to scare drug offenders with a no tolerance policy, which, in theory, is a good idea. However, many are asking the question: is this really the most just and effective way of eradicating our country’s drug problem?”