Micah De Voe

Dr. Erika Cornelius Smith

PSCI 315 ON2
08/05/2017

Legal System Abuse or Inefficiency?

The Justice system in the United State is held as one of the best in the world. We have clear cut

laws, we recognize the right of a trial to prove guilt instead of innocence and we try to find the

truth and act accordingly. But in many situations, the justice system can seem to be rather

unjust to the individuals that find themselves in it. For many crimes, sentencing can be waived

in lieu of a five or probation or both. This is the case in many high level law such as the Patriot

Act or banking regulation. For example, if it is found that financial employee willfully or

knowingly acts out of compliance with Regulation B, a consumer protection law for lending,

that person can be jailed for term of 5 years or fined for up to $250,000.00 or both. But the

sentence of jail time can be restricted if a fine is demanded by the court.

But what happens if a person does not pay the fine? In this case, jail time is all but expected.

The question in regards to this particular situation is, is this legal to do so? If we take a step

back for a moment we can equate this issue to the one that we had back in the late 1700s and

early 1800s when debtors prisons were not only common but very well feared. The purpose of

a debtors prison was to hold individuals that did not pay their debts to their debtors. If the

debtor called on the debt and the person was unable to pay, they were often locked up until

the debt was paid. The problem with this particular method of punishment was that it was
essentially a living oxymoron. If the person is locked away, they cannot work, therefore they

can never repay the debt and have no way to get of prison.

This is happening more and more frequently in our current system of criminal justice, but in the

modern era, the courts are the debtors and the accused are suffering. There is something to be

said about a system where laws are set and punishments are doled out as listed. However,

when we are discussing monetary discipline tactics, there should be a little more forethought in

regards to further punishment. First and foremost, the economy, albeit much more improved

these days, is still recovering in many sectors, industries and areas. It is hard enough to find a

job that one can earn a livable wage. Now trying to do so as a convict with a record held over

you is even more difficult. On the off chance that they can get a job, they now have to factor

fine payment into the mix, either all up front or through monthly payments.

There is a case refrenced in the CQ Researcher provided about a man who was jailed for not

paying the entire amount of his fine, he did a partial amount but not in its entirety. Because he

did not pay in full, he was jailed for 22 days. Because he was incarcerated, he lost the job that

he found which caused him to not have funds to pay the fine moving forward. There are also

some cases where mandatory minimum fines must be paid but in many cases, the judge has the

authority to reduce or make the fines more manageable for the defendant. Some judges do

favor these methods but it is not very common. Essentially what this creates is a system of what

appears to be revolving, constant and frequent violations by the same offender.

Another issue that comes up is that of the mandatory minimum sentencing terms. As we

discussed above, fines can often be negotiated by the judge based on the needs or
circumstances of the offender. However, in many cases these minimums in regards to jail time

are not negotiable. These laws stem form a time when dugs were rampant and law makers

wanted to get dealers and users alike off the streets while scaring the rest of the population

into obedience simply by the sheer length of incarceration time required. The problem with this

method is that literally no one cares about or even thinks about the jail time while propagating

a crime.

Right now, there are over 2 million incarcerated individuals, many of whom have been in prison

for decades for committing acts that today have no jail time assigned and that may even have

been decriminalized or even made legal all together. That is not to say that all individuals

should be released but there are people that were served an excessive sentence for crimes that

are now considered to be nothing. Many of these people were in their youth when charged and

were sentenced to over 50 years or more in prison for a single mistake.

And it should be noted that the United States has moved to make sentences more fair and

equitable in regards to the crime committed. Youth offenders are also trying to be reached, but

many of their lives are being destroyed because judges dont have the ability to reduce terms

with mandatory minimums. For that reason the House of Representatives is working H.R. 65 or

the RAISE Act.

Now it should be noted that this is very different and is not connected to the Trump

Administration RAISE Act on immigration limits or requirements. That is S. 354 and is currently

being referred to the committee on the Judiciary. We will talk more about that bill next week.

But H.R. 65 would give judges across the board the authority to reduce minimum mandatory
sentences for minors and youth accused of nonviolent crimes. In the bill it refers to nonviolent

crimes as those already defined as violent such as assault and battery, murder, man slaughter,

vehicular homicide and other equitable crimes. It also includes sexual assault in any and all

forms as a violent crime. This would open up the option of judges to reduce the jail time of first

time offender drug users, dealers and other petty cries such as theft. The judge may decide to

still require a jail term, but instead of making it a mandatory term, they can reduce it to what

they feel is appropriate for the situation with context.

Again, the United States is heralded for its criminal justice system and the process that we

follow. But in many cases, efficiency, common sense and proper judgement are missing form

our court rooms. The only thing this does is cause more tax payer dollars to be lost in court

cases fought against juvenile first time offenders who receive sentences that far out which the

gravity or severity of the crime. With more people in jail, we only create more of a liability, or

cost, to the ever increasing debt the US holds while taking people out of the work force, often

permanently, and reducing tax income from the wages they could earn. There is a need to

punish criminals and propagate justice in the nation, but these cases call to question how

equitable the courts really are.

 References

Gertner, N., & Bains, C. (2017, May 15). Analysis | Mandatory minimum sentences are cruel

and ineffective. Sessions wants them back. Retrieved August 06, 2017, from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/15/mandatory-minimum-

sentences-are-cruel-and-ineffective-sessions-wants-them-back/?utm_term=.0d834fb6c372

Hoag, Christina (2016 September 16) CQ Researcher Jailing Debtors

A Federal Judge Says Mandatory Minimum Sentences Often Don't Fit The Crime. (2017, June

01). Retrieved August 06, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/2017/06/01/531004316/a-federal-

judge-says-mandatory-minimum-sentences-often-dont-fit-the-crime