Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Research
: New York Supreme Court Criminal Term LibrarySixty Percent Oppose Mandatory Minimums For Nonviolent Crimes According to Survey
By David Badertscher, PLL
ADVERTISEMENTS
<p><font size="2"><strong>Source: </strong><em>Crime and Justice News, </em>September 25, 2008</font></p>
<p><font size="2">"Americans may be starting to rethink one of the toughest recent anticrime practices: mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, says the Christian Science Monitor. A new survey finds 60 percent of respondents opposing mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes, including a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. Nearly 80 percent said judges are best qualified to determine sentences for crimes; nearly 60 percent said they'd be likely to vote for a politician who opposed mandatory minimums. "The public is ahead of the politicians on this," says Julie Stewart, president Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), which commissioned the poll. 'This is a message members of Congress haven't heard. As a country we believe in individualized justice.' "
</font></p>
<p><font size="2">"Not everyone believes mandatory minimums should be changed. Attorney General Michael Mukasey opposed the efforts last year to reduce sentences for crack offenders. The Fraternal Order of Police advocates mandatory minimums as an important deterrent to drug crimes. Says the FOP's Jim Pasco: 'Nothing focuses the mind on consequences like knowing that you're going to get, for instance, a five-year minimum sentence.' FAMM argues that there's no evidence mandatory minimums have helped reduce drug crime, and in fact, often focuses law-enforcement efforts on small-time players rather than drug kingpins". </font></p>
<p><a href="http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001tKF7nOtAem0xdSAvlW5jo5qEeNORcMeJdu2TLqxvUI64EkRnGc4mEPfNPGPsP03hDEJqG_Ddl_eqjmcO0l03l6BGE9vq16aI5pEG6UW8_RugcrWtnbIsybOgivLowiXWc2RHfN8IL8HxF3mMzgiMR-lKd8YqtvfF" shape="rect" color="#0000FF" target="_blank"><font size="2">Christian Science Monitor</font></a><font size="2"> </font></p>Full post as published by New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library on September 25, 2008 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Why Law Enforcement Supports Mandatory Minimums
New FAMM report and poll data on reforming mandatory minimums
Guideline Goodness II: Inside the Gift Horse's Mouth
When the Not-So-Smart Crowd Governs ...








