Mandatory Minimums and the Sentencing of Federal Drug Crimes

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Mandatory Minimums and the Sentencing of Federal Drug Crimes FebruAry 2017Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5-9 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Email: publications@iza.org www.iza.org IZA -Institute of Labor EconomicsDiscussion PaPer series IZA DP No. 10544 This paper shows that the actual impact of these mandatory minimums on sentencing is quite nuanced. A large fraction of mandatory minimum eligible offenders, particularly first-time offenders, are able to avoid these mandatory minimums. Moreover, despite lower quantity eligibility thresholds for crack, a smaller fraction of crack offenders are eligible for mandatory minimums relative to other drugs. Furthermore, while being just eligible for a mandatory minimum increases sentence length on average, the impact is not uniform across drugs. Notably, sentences for crack offenders are generally sufficiently long such that, on average, sentences for crack offenders are not impacted by eligibility for a mandatory minimum. In summary, the discrepancy in federal sentencing between crack offenders and those convicted for other drugs does not appear to be driven by mandatory minimums, but rather other aspects of federal sentencing policy and norms. Mandatory Minimums and the Sentencing of Federal Drug Crimes JEL Classification:J15, K14, K40

Trends in Sentencing of Federal Drug Offenders: Findings From U.S. District Courts 2002–2017

“…The current study provides several contributions to the extant literature on sentencing of drug offenders. Notably, most research to date has assessed disparities in drug sentencing with a static focus on a specific time point (Albonetti, 1997; Bjerk, 2017; Kautt, 2002; Kautt & Spohn, 2002). In contrast, this study used 16 years of data on sentences of convicted drug offenders in U.S. federal district courts to assess changes in punishment of federal drug offenses over this period, as well as whether courts are sentencing opioid and methamphetamine offenders differently in light of recent drug epidemics.…”

Quantification of Cathinone Analogues without Reference Standard Using 1H Quantitative NMR

“…In the judicial theory and practice of drug-related crime, the conviction and sentencing of the defendant depend on the type (identification) and quantity (quantification) of illicit drugs [4][5][6] ; hence, appropriate analytical techniques are required.…”