Arguement Against Minimum Drug Sentencing

Argument against mandatory minimum drug sentencing

There are many different argument both for and against mandatory minimum drug sentencing. However there are more arguments against mandatory minimum drug sentencing then there are for the support of the mandatory sentencing. One of the biggest arguments against mandatory minimum drug sentencing is that it was originally intended to target the higher level drug dealers but the majority of the cases have only been low level drug dealers. One of the other arguments is that will cause the jail systems to become overcrowded and that if is unfair.

The reason these laws were designed were to try to put an end to and capture more high level drug lords. The argument that many people are arguing is that the laws are actually targeting low level/ minor drug dealers on the street level and having them sent to prison for, potentially, their entire life. The problem with this is that the system is sending low level street dealers to prison with hardened criminals. What could happen here is that the criminal could go into prison as a low level, non-violent dealer and exit prison with the mentality of a more serious, violent criminal.

Another argument against mandatory minimum sentencing is the question of it being more cost effective then the previous method of dealing with high level drug dealers. A study at the Drug policy Research Center decided to look into this question when it comes to the drug Cocaine; which they believe to be the most troublesome drug in the United States. What they found was that “Mandatory minimum sentences are not justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing cocaine consumption or drug-related crime”. They found that mandatory minimum drug sentencing reduced cocaine use less per million taxpayer dollars then simply sending the high level drug dealers and heavy users through treatment programs.