FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W340203365> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W340203365 startingPage "1147" @default.
• W340203365 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION When the decision in Miller v. Alabama * (1) was announced, my colleagues and 1 at Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) cheered its ringing endorsement of proportionality and individualized sentencing. FAMM, after all, was formed in 1991 to champion sentencing discretion and work to eliminate laws and policies that require judges to impose pre-set minimum sentences. In its earliest days, FAMM found its unique voice by gathering, distilling, and telling the stories of individuals who received disproportionate sentences because of mandatory sentencing laws. Part of our job to this day, more than twenty-two years later, remains to tell anyone who will listen, and especially lawmakers, that a defendant facing sentencing deserves to be seen as more than the crime for which he or she was convicted. An essential part of our work is giving a voice to people who were, for all intents and purposes, silenced at sentencing. In this Article, I make the case that, while the robust proportionality principles informing Miller and similar cases are unlikely to translate into the end of mandatory minimum sentencing by way of the Eighth Amendment (at least anytime soon), embracing sentencing proportionality is the key for lawmakers who are--or should be--addressing the unsustainable growth in the federal prison population as a distinct threat to public safety. Politicians who support mandatory minimums have been immune over the years to the many reasoned arguments about how unjust those sentences are and what costs they pose to families and communities. Mandatory minimum sentences have been touted as necessary to keep the public safe, and support for these sentences has been seen as politically expedient. Even empirical arguments demonstrating that getting rid of mandatory sentencing will not harm public safety have fallen on deaf ears. We grew a criminal justice system addicted to solving social and public safety problems with incarceration and we combined that system with a long-simmering distrust of the judiciary, thereby creating mandatory minimums that dominate the sentencing field, directly and indirectly, through their sentencing guideline proxies. However, today federal lawmakers face a new challenge: the burgeoning prison population consumes an ever-growing portion of the budget of the Department of Justice (DOJ). (2) This threatens the budgets for the DOJ's other components, including those directly responsible for public safety, such as the FBI, and those that fund grants to state and local law enforcement. A number of states--including conservative states--for which the problem of over-incarceration surfaced with greater urgency over the last seven years initiated measures to stabilize their prison populations, if not reduce them. (3) Those states were laboratories for change and caught the attention of traditional supporters of harsh sentencing policies: conservative lawmakers and opinion leaders who are speaking out about mass incarceration, the influence of sentencing, and even mandatory minimums. Some of these conservative politicians and opinion leaders even made common cause with their liberal counterparts to take a look at over-criminalization, over-federalization, and even early release mechanisms. In this Article, I draw a connection between mandatory minimum sentencing and the growth of the federal prison population; mandatory minimums have required and influenced unduly lengthy sentences that are neither individualized nor proportionate. Proportionate sentencing, on the other hand, results in lower sentences, not to mention bed and cost savings. While back-end reforms to encourage the earlier release of prisoners are commendable, front-end reforms that result in lower sentences are essential if we are to make a lasting impact on the size of the federal prison population. Sentencing policies that embrace proportionality are key to stabilizing and reducing overcrowding. …" @default.
• W340203365 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W340203365 creator A5051014281 @default.
• W340203365 date "2013-09-22" @default.
• W340203365 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W340203365 title "Mill(er)ing Mandatory Minimums: What Federal Lawmakers Should Take from Miller V. Alabama" @default.
• W340203365 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W340203365 type Work @default.
• W340203365 sameAs 340203365 @default.
• W340203365 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W340203365 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W340203365 hasAuthorship W340203365A5051014281 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C183763965 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C2777496998 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C2777530160 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C2777632292 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C2779263217 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C2780656516 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W340203365 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C144024400 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C154945302 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C17744445 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C183763965 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C18903297 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C199539241 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C2777496998 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C2777530160 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C2777632292 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C2779263217 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C2780656516 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C41008148 @default.
• W340203365 hasConceptScore W340203365C86803240 @default.
• W340203365 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W340203365 hasLocation W3402033651 @default.
• W340203365 hasOpenAccess W340203365 @default.
• W340203365 hasPrimaryLocation W3402033651 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W1558643626 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W2005632625 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W2011505046 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W2066219856 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W2236459754 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W2256684861 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W23158131 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W2740290933 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W2747251183 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W3122064431 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W3122263223 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W3122685052 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W3124458881 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W3125333095 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W44470923 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W44851980 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W2606664295 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W3122748783 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W3124686478 @default.
• W340203365 hasRelatedWork W3125743615 @default.
• W340203365 hasVolume "78" @default.
• W340203365 isParatext "false" @default.
• W340203365 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W340203365 magId "340203365" @default.
• W340203365 workType "article" @default.