Arugay 1

Darielle Arugay
Mr. Rogers
Government 3
2 November 2015
Criminal Law Reform
The United States, known as the worlds largest jailer, is facing a growing problem in
the criminal justice system: mass incarceration. The imprisonment rate in the United States is
greater than that of any nation in the world and many of its prisons are operating overcapacity.
The federal prison population has grown drastically over the past decades and is continuously
increasing; this is largely due to drug laws. Misguided drug laws and the flawed system of
sentencing for drug crimes are large contributors to mass incarceration. There is a lot of
controversy regarding how the issue of mass incarceration should be addressed. This is due to the
fact many people are looking for a practical way to keep offenders of low-level crimes out of
prison while still holding them accountable for the crimes they commit. The Prevention of Mass
Incarceration Act of 2015 will effectively address the problem of mass incarceration by creating
rehabilitation and treatment programs to serve as an alternative to incarceration for offenders of
low-level, nonviolent drug crimes. This bill should become a law because many offenders of
such low-level crimes are subject to harsh sentencing requirements, there are discrepancies in
drug laws and drug crime arrests, and creating rehabilitation programs will reduce the rate of
recidivism for drug convictions.
Harsh sentencing requirements for drug crimes greatly contribute to the rising prison
population. An offender of a drug crime is subject to mandatory minimum sentencing, which are
inflexible and binding prison terms for people convicted of certain crimes. Since each drug crime

Arugay 2
has a punishment of a strict and particular length, any negotiation of sentencing for such crimes
is prohibited. Although they [mandatory minimums] were designed to target the drug kingpins,
55% of all federal drug defendants are low-level offenders, such as mules or street-dealers
(United States Congress 225). Mandatory minimum sentencing is ineffective because, it not only
fails to serve its purpose, but also offenders of lower level drug crimes are subject to the same
severity of sentencing as those who commit high-level, more dangerous drug crimes. The strict
prison terms that come as a result of mandatory minimums incarcerate a large amount of lowlevel drug crime offenders, which is large factor in adding to the overgrowing prison population.
According to the United States Sentencing Commission, In 2012, 96.5 percent of all federal
drug offenders received prison sentences. The strict drug laws and their mandatory minimums
limits justice by preventing judges from sentencing an offender to a punishment that firs the
individual and the circumstances of his or her crime. This causes the vast majority of all drug
offenders to face a lengthy, premeditated sentence for their crime, regardless of the extent of
violence involved or level of the crime. In addition to the mandatory minimum sentencing
contributing to mass incarceration, many offenders of low-level, nonviolent drug crimes are
charged with unnecessary and long sentences for such undeserving crimes. For instance, there
were more than 1.5 million drug arrests in the U.S. in 2013, in which the vast majority more
than 80 percent were for possession only (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and, according to
the Bureau of Justice Statistics, offenders convicted for drug possession were sentenced to three
years in prison on average, whereas the estimated time to be served was only 16 months. A very
large majority of drug offenders convicted of such low-level, nonviolent crimes are sentenced to
lengthy terms in overcrowded prisons while offenders of high-level or violent drug crimes
should be occupying the limited space in prisons instead. If the criminal justice system continues

Arugay 3
to sentence drug offenders to crimes as minor as drug possession, the prison population and rate
of incarceration will continue to increase and the issue of mass incarceration will only worsen.
The harsh sentencing requirements of drug laws and the over-sentencing of minor drug crimes
are big factors that contribute to the problem of mass incarceration throughout the nation.
However, the severe sentencing of drug crimes is only one example of the many problems in
drug laws that show the need for reform.
In addition to the inflexibility of drug laws, there are many discrepancies in the drug
laws and in drug crime arrests. For example, a defendant convicted of possessing 500 grams of
powder cocaine triggered the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as a defendant
convicted of possessing only five grams of crack cocaine (Hudson 142). Being that crack and
powdered cocaine cause similar physical reactions and the only differences between them are the
method of ingestion and the addition of baking soda, crack cocaine and powdered cocaine are
generally the same thing (U.S. Government Printing Office). This means that a person in
possession of 400 grams of powder cocaine could essentially receive a shorter sentence than a
person in possession of five grams of crack cocaine. This discrepancy shows the faultiness of
sentencing for drug charges as well as the unviability of the drug laws currently intact.
Correspondingly, inaccuracies in drug laws, such as the inconsistency of the drug crime
sentencing involving crack and powdered cocaine, contribute to the fact that many people
convicted of drug crimes are faced with a greater punishment than necessary, which ultimately
leads to mass incarceration. Consequently, the quantity discrepancy of crack cocaine and
powdered cocaine also results in significant sentencing disparities by race. Specifically with
regard to crack, more than 80% of the defendants sentenced for crack offenses are African
American, despite the fact that more than 66% of crack users are white or Hispanic (New Jersey

Arugay 4
Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing). Racial disparities are also apparent in the system
of mandatory minimum sentencing put forth in drug laws. Research shows that prosecutors are
twice as likely to pursue a mandatory minimum sentence for Black people as for white people
charged with the same offense (Starr). These racial imbalances signify that the sentencing for
drug offences is disproportionate and unequal and that the criminal justice system is in need of a
more accurate and effective system of sentencing. The discrepancies apparent in the criminal
justice system involving drug laws and sentencing indicate that the punishment for minor drug
crimes must be altered to fairly discipline drug offenders in a way that is effective and beneficial
to society.
The Prevention of Mass Incarceration Act will create rehabilitation and treatment
programs to serve as an alternative to incarceration. Rehabilitation is a better form of punishment
than incarceration because it would help decrease the prison population and would provide drug
offenders with the help they need. In a study that tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after
their release from prison in 2005, researchers found that 76.9% of drug offenders were most
likely to be rearrested (National Institute of Justice). Sentencing people convicted of drug crimes
to federal prison will only add to the overcrowding of prisons and be detrimental to the offenders
in need of treatment. The criminal environment of prisons will leave the drug offenders
substance abuse untreated and may promote more violent behavior. Substance-using offenders
who remain untreated are more likely to relapse into criminal behavior upon their release from
prison, which can threaten the safety of the community and public health. According to the
National Institute of Drug Abuse, scientific research shows that treatment can cut drug use in
half, decrease criminal activity, and reduce arrests while helping many drug using offenders
avoid relapse and successfully remove themselves from a life of substance use and crime

Arugay 5
(National Institute of Drug Abuse). This study shows that rehabilitation is a more effective form
of punishment for drug crimes because it is proven to greatly decrease the recidivism rate among
drug offenders; whereas drug offenders sentenced to federal prison have a higher chance of being
rearrested for a drug-related crime after their release. Rehabilitation and treatment programs will
not only help solve the problem of mass incarceration by keeping offenders out of prisons, but
will also benefit society and the offenders by effectively holding them accountable for their
crimes while providing them with an opportunity to get back on their feet.
People may be against this bill because some may argue that the creation of rehabilitation
and treatment programs will greatly increase federal spending and that mandatory minimum
sentencing maintains a uniform system of sentencing throughout the criminal justice system
while ensuring that individuals are punished equally based on the crime they commit. Many
people believe that having rehabilitation and treatment programs is not beneficial and will only
take more of the taxpayers dollars. However, if only 10 percent of drug-addicted offenders
received drug rehabilitation instead of jail time, the criminal justice system would save $4.8
billion compared to current costs. (Zarkin). Rehabilitation is proven to reduce recidivism among
drug offenders whereas there is a higher rate of recidivism among drug offenders who are
sentenced to long sentences in prison. Although it will be initially costly to create effective
rehabilitation and treatment programs, the creation of such programs to serve as an alternative to
incarceration will save money in the long term due to fewer re-arrests. In addition, among the
40 states surveyed in the 2012 report by the Vera Institute of Justice, the average annual perinmate cost was $31,286 (Delaney). Although the creation of treatment programs may increase
federal spending at first, the costly price for an individual drug offender to continually be
rearrested for drug-related crimes upon his or her release is not only just as expensive as having

Arugay 6
the drug offender participate in treatment programs, but also contributes to the overcrowding in
prisons. Also, people can argue that mandatory minimum sentencing guarantees that sentences
are uniform throughout the federal system and ensure that individuals are punished equally based
on the crime they commit. However, In a time of government austerity, repealing mandatory
minimums would be warranted simply because of the economic benefit (Tymins). Although
mandatory minimum sentencing is a cost-efficient quick-fix solution for a drug crime, it allows
drug offenders to be tried with injustice because judges are not able to accurately fit the
punishment to the individual and the circumstances of his or her crime. Correspondingly,
disparities in the drug laws prevent true justice from being served and fair punishment from
being given to drug offenders. Even though there are arguments against the enactment of the
Prevention of Mass Incarceration Act, the benefits that will come as of a result of this act
outweigh the initial drawbacks.
Due to harsh sentencing requirements for low-level drug crimes, discrepancies in drug
laws and drug crime arrests, and the benefits of creating rehabilitation programs for drug
offenders, the Prevention of Mass Incarceration Act of 2015, which will create an alternative
solution to incarceration, should become a law. The strict, misguided over-sentencing of drug
offenses in addition to the disparities in drug laws and racial imbalances in the system of drug
crime sentencing present the great need for drug law and sentencing reform in the criminal
justice system. Having rehabilitation and treatment programs serve as an alternative punishment
for drug crimes will prevent mass incarceration because it will eliminate drug policies that result
in the increase of incarceration rates and disproportionate sentencing. This Act will not only
prevent mass incarceration, but will also promote public safety by allowing people convicted of
drug crimes to get the treatment they need to rejoin society. Mass incarceration is a continuously

Arugay 7
growing problem in the United States today and the government must take action to provide a
solution. The enactment of the Prevention of Mass Incarceration Act of 2015 will be an effective
first step in approaching and combating this issue.

Arugay 8
Bibliography
"Cracks in the System: Twenty Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law." (n.d.): n. pag.
New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing. New Jersey Commission to
Review Criminal Sentencing, Oct. 2006. Web. 17 Dec. 2015.
<http://sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/pdf/articles/2006/Nov2006/document02.pdf>.
Delaney, Ruth. "The Price of Songs." The Price of Prisons 18.410 (1877): 187. Vera Institute of
Justice, 20 July 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
"Drug Addiction Treatment in the Criminal Justice System." Drug Addiction Treatment in the
Criminal Justice System. National Institute of Drug Abuse, 27 Apr. 2014. Web. 23 Oct.
2015. <http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/criminal-justice/drug-addictiontreatment-in-criminal-justice-system>.
"Drugs And Crime Facts." Bureau of Justice Statistics Drug and Crime Facts. Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Web. 23 Oct. 2015. <http://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/ptrpa.cfm>.
Hudson, Carly. "Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Ensuring That Defendants Incorrectly
Sentenced Between the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and United States v. Dorsey Achieve
Re-Sentencing." Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems (2014): 142-79.
Columbia Law School. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Fall2015/Hudson.pdf>.
"OFFENDERS RECEIVING SENTENCING OPTIONS IN EACH PRIMARY OFFENSE
CATEGORY." Federal Sentencing Reporter 20.3, White-Collar Sentencing (2008): 21114. Table 12. United States Sentencing Commision. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/annual-reportsand-sourcebooks/2012/Table12.pdf>

Arugay 9
"Persons Arrested." Crime in the United States 2012. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 16 May
2013. Web. 02 Nov. 2015. <https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-theu.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/persons-arrested/persons-arrested>.
"Recidivism." National Institute of Justice. National Institute of Justice, 17 June 2014. Web. 23
Oct 2015. <http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx>
Starr, Sonja B., and M. Marit Rehavi. "Mandatory Sentencing and Racial Disparity, Assessing
the Role of Prosecutors and the Effects of Booker." University of Michigan Law School.
University of Michigan Law School, 2013. Web. 17 Dec. 2015.
<http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2497&context=articles>.
Tymins, Austin. "American Drug Sentencing: Inefficient, Unfair, and Racially Discriminatory."
The Institute of Politics at Harvard University. Harvard IOP. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.iop.harvard.edu/american-drug-sentencing-inefficient-unfair-and-raciallydiscriminatory>.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government Reform. Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources.Drugs in the Mail : How Can It Be
Stopped?: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives,
One Hundred Sixth Congress, Second Session, May 26, 2000.Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 2001. Print.
ZARKIN, GARY A., ALEXANDER J. COWELL, KATHERINE A. HICKS, MICHAEL J.
MILLS, Steven Belenko, LAURA J. DUNLAP, KIMBERLY A. HOUSER, and Vince
Keyes. "BENEFITS AND COSTS OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
PROGRAMS FOR STATE PRISON INMATES: RESULTS FROM A LIFETIME

Arugay 10
SIMULATION MODEL." Health Economics. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 19 Apr.
2011. Web. 17 Dec. 2015. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165106/>.
111 Congress. "UNFAIRNESS IN FEDERAL COCAINE SENTENCING: IS IT TIME TO
CRACK THE 100 TO 1 DISPARITY?" - UNFAIRNESS IN FEDERAL COCAINE
SENTENCING: IS IT TIME TO CRACK THE 100 TO 1 DISPARITY? U.S. Government
Printing Office, 21 May 2009. Web. 17 Dec. 2015.
<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg49783/html/CHRG-111hhrg49783.htm>.