Obligatory minimum requirements reduce crime

Who is in favor of mandatory minimum sentences and why?

Mandatory minimum requirements are preferred by those who want to reduce crime and related illnesses for society and families. Given the astonishingly high relapse rates among these criminals, one has to conclude that additional rehabilitation is warranted and that removing it from society will protect them and us.

Last week the Justice Department released an updated study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) which found that 83 percent of state-released prisoners would be arrested again within nine years of their release. Forty-four percent of released state prisoners were arrested in the first year after their release, 68 percent within three years and 79 percent within six years.

Second, the BJS study tells us that the crimes federal drug criminals will commit are not limited to drug crimes. According to the study, more than three quarters (77 percent) of released drug offenders were arrested for a non-drug crime, and more than a third (34 percent) were arrested for a violent crime within nine years.

As Daniel Horowitz puts it, "If you get drug abusers out of prison early during this time, they will not only sell deadlier drugs and kill thousands, but will commit other crimes," including openly violent ones.

Another source of mandatory minimum requirements are stakeholders in the for-profit prison industry and prison unions. You are actively committed to this position, a gross conflict of interest from my point of view.

K dog

@blip One would hope for a society where relapse is low. During this time, shorter sentences only lead to more crime. They are closely related. I think you would agree that prison is pretty awful. What a terrible deterrent. The logical mistake you are making is that you are assuming that criminals can be rehabilitated.

Paul Johnson

Private prisons have no incentive to reduce relapses as this would limit repeat business.