This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S22-Policy-NCFCA-12-NEG-Mandatory-Minimums.docx |
File Size | 60.72 KB |
Date added | September 27, 2021 |
Category | Policy (NCFCA) |
Author | Jonathan T. Helton |
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform its policies regarding convicted prisoners under federal jurisdiction
The AFF case abolishes mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. These laws apply to individuals who have violated a federal drug law. AFF argues that these mandatory minimums create racial disparities and overcrowd the U.S. prison system. Your response will be that biased judges are the real drivers behind racial disparities and that repealing mandatory minimums will enable them and worsen the situation. Further, there are already exceptions to mandatory minimums and close to 50% of individuals who could serve a mandatory minimum number of years don’t.
You need to understand the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Booker v. United States (henceforth known as “Booker”). Congress enacted sentencing “guidelines” decades ago and then made them mandatory in 2003. These are not the same as “mandatory minimums” but they have a similar effect. The guidelines took away much of the discretion of judges and gave them a narrow window of penalties they could impose for federal crimes (including those with no mandatory minimum). Federal judges started following the guidelines (even before they were mandatory). They were designed to reduce disparity (different people getting unjustly different sentences for the same crime) and ensure solid “tough on crime” law enforcement (to prevent judges from being too lenient on bad criminals). In the 2005 Booker decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress couldn’t make the guidelines mandatory. The evidence in this brief claims that this experiment with mandatory versus advisory standards is a good model for the difference between mandatory minimums (status quo) and what would happen without them (AFF Plan). The mandatory standards before Booker were reducing racial disparities by their uniformity, because it reduced the discretion and opportunity for bias among judges issuing sentences. Once Booker relaxed the standards, NEG evidence shows more and more racial disparity in sentencing. This proves that when you give judges more discretion, racial bias increases, and that’s what will happen when mandatory minimums are repealed.