Caution Needed for Mandatory Sentencing Laws

(Posted on 21/06/11)

David Cameron's mind is made up. He insists a "two strikes and you're out" mandatory life sentence is justice served throughout the UK. And he might be right, especially considering his intent appears to be applicable only to those who are deemed seriously violent or who are convicted on sexually based crimes. That said, some critics are concerned about the already-overwhelming prison numbers. But there's another consideration Cameron might not have thought of: The United States.

In a scathing editorial, Mississippi's largest newspaper, Clarion-Ledger, asks if the costs are worth the sacrifice when it comes to the forty year war on drugs the nation has struggled with since the 1970s. N. Sombi Lambright published the story of a "healthy man" who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison based on the state and federal sentencing guidelines, which basically follow a "three strikes" guideline. Vincent Hudson, the convicted, had two arrests years earlier for minor drug infractions. Youthful indiscretion would be what many call it. The only problem was, he wasn't guilty. The state convicted an innocent man. Making things worse was the realization that Hudson entered prison in 2007 and in good health. By the time his conviction was overturned, he had only one month left to live due to congestive heart failure and kidney failure. He did not receive proper medical attention while imprisoned. In short, the last three years of his life were miserable and spent under the cloud of a guilty verdict and in a Mississippi prison. David Cameron's recommendation is even harsher than the U.S.

Along with many solicitors throughout the country, Labour leader Ed Miliband called Cameron's fickle stances "another example of this government not being in touch and making proposals that they then have to abandon".

Cameron is attempting, it appears, to find that happy medium, so to speak, that sends a strong message to would-be criminals. There is that fine line between being too lenient and being too soft on crime. Solicitors in the UK have long since struggled with that distinction as they seek to defend their respective clients. Then, there are the financial considerations and the overwhelming financial burden on the government of too-full prisons.

To be sure, there are no easy answers; however, at a minimum, the repercussions of a too-tough stance with no safety mechanisms in place to ensure a proper verdict is injustice at its worst.