I’ve been interested in criminal justice reform since middle school, or maybe even earlier. One of my most common complaints growing up was “This isn’t fair!” It wasn’t just used when I didn’t get something I wanted, but I would frequently describe scenarios as either fair or unfair. When I learned what mandatory minimums were, probably around early high school, I immediately thought they weren’t fair. How could a legislature force the judicial system to give a set minimum sentence for certain crimes? Wasn’t part of the point of separation of powers that each branch of government could operate on its own based on its expertise without overreach from other branches? I understood the desire for mandatory minimums for some crimes, particularly crimes that often saw the perpetrators get off with lighter sentences than many thought they deserved. But I couldn’t, and still can’t, comprehend the fairness of the concept of mandatory minimums for drug-related offenses. Without even talking about my thoughts on the criminalization of drug use/possession in this country — and I have a lot of thoughts about that — it just didn’t make sense to me. There are so many problems with the criminalization of drugs in the United States, from issues with the drug scheduling system to the war on drugs to racially targeted sentencing disparities, that the sentencing system felt so wrong to me. 

And so, I decided to use the abolition of mandatory minimums for drug-related offenses as my main topic for exploration in Writing 220. Poke around this site to see the evolution of my work throughout the course.