Last Updated on: 20th October 2023, 02:19 pm

The Shocking Truth About Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mandatory minimum sentences are laws that require judges to hand down a minimum prison term when convicting for certain federal and state crimes. This takes away judicial discretion in sentencing. Judges have to deliver the minimum sentence, even if they think it doesn’t fit the crime.

These laws started in the 1970s and 80s during the “tough on crime” and “war on drugs” movements. The goal was to create harsh punishments as a deterrent. But critics argue they’ve done more harm than good. Let’s take a closer look at the controversies surrounding federal mandatory minimums.

A Brief History

The first federal mandatory minimums were added in the Boggs Act of 1952. This set mandatory sentences for drug crimes. Things ramped up in the 1980s with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. This law created mandatory minimums of 5, 10, 20 years, life in prison, and death for various drug charges. It also introduced the infamous 100-to-1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparity.

Later laws like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the “Crime Bill”) and the Armed Career Criminal Act added more mandatory minimums. These got tied to things like gun possession, sex offenses, domestic violence, and three-strike repeat offenses. Soon judges faced all kinds of mandatory minimums at the federal level.

The Main Controversies

Critics say mandatory minimums cause several problems in the justice system. Here’s an overview of the main controversies surrounding these laws:

They Remove Judicial Discretion

Judges have no flexibility in sentencing if there’s a mandatory minimum. They can’t give a shorter sentence, even if they think it would be more fair. This removes case-by-case judgment from the courts.

For example, let’s say someone gets caught carrying a gun while selling a small amount of drugs. There’s a 5-year federal mandatory minimum for the gun, and maybe a 1 or 2 year minimum for the drugs. The judge can’t give a sentence less than 5 years, even if they think a 1 or 2 year sentence would have been more appropriate.

They Disproportionately Impact Minorities

Because mandatory minimums take away judicial discretion, they amplify racial disparities in sentencing. Minorities face longer average prison terms compared to white people convicted of similar crimes. This exacerbates existing inequities in the justice system.

For example, the harsh crack cocaine sentences have disproportionately affected African Americans. In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act to reduce this disparity. But more action is still needed to create fair, unbiased sentencing.

They Can Lead to Excessive Punishments

Critics say mandatory minimums lead to penalties that are too harsh and don’t fit the crime. They point to cases of nonviolent drug offenders getting 20 years or life without parole. Defendants can face decades in prison for things like:

• Having a small amount of drugs for personal use
• Acting as a lookout or driver for a drug deal
• Possessing an illegal gun while committing a minor drug offense

These punishments often seem extreme compared to the offenses. Reform advocates argue judges should have more leeway to issue fair sentences.

They Haven’t Reduced Crime

A main goal of mandatory minimums was deterring crime. But the evidence shows they haven’t worked. One study by the Pew Center found states without mandatory minimums have similar crime rates as those with them.

For deterrence to work, criminals have to be aware of sentencing laws when committing crimes. But there’s little proof this logic actually changes behavior. So harsh mandatory minimums don’t seem to reduce crime.

Arguments in Favor

Supporters of mandatory minimums make some counterarguments. Here are the main points they raise:

They Promote Consistency

Mandatory minimums standardize sentences, so punishment doesn’t vary wildly between judges. This promotes uniformity in the justice system.

They Give Prosecutors Leverage

Prosecutors can use mandatory minimums as leverage to get defendants to plead guilty. This gives them another tool for resolving cases without a trial.

They Incapacitate Dangerous Offenders

While critics focus on nonviolent offenders, mandatory minimums also incapacitate violent criminals, like armed career criminals. Keeping these people locked up protects public safety.

Judges Can’t Be Trusted

Some argue judges can’t be trusted with too much discretion. Mandatory minimums limit their power to give out weak sentences that could endanger the public.

Reform Efforts and Changes

In recent years, both parties have warmed up to reforming federal mandatory minimums. There’s been some progress, but broader change is still needed. Here are some developments:

• The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act reduced the crack/powder sentencing disparity.
• The 2015 Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act would have cut some federal mandatory minimums. It had bipartisan support but didn’t pass.
• The 2018 First Step Act made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. This allowed around 2,600 inmates to petition for reduced crack sentences.
• The 2021 EQUAL Act would completely eliminate the crack/powder disparity. It passed the House but awaits Senate approval.

These measures show growing momentum for reform. But there’s still more work to be done to scale back excessive mandatory minimums.

Looking to the Future

The controversies around federal mandatory minimum sentences won’t disappear anytime soon. But the recent reforms offer some hope.

To build a fairer justice system, Congress needs to grant judges more discretion in sentencing. Mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug and gun offenses should be eased. And sentencing laws should be applied equitably, regardless of race, going forward.

Change won’t happen overnight. But the shocking truth about mandatory minimums is hopefully inspiring leaders to enact smarter, more humane policies. The cost of inaction is too high, in both lives and justice lost.

Sources

• 18 U.S. Code § 924 – Penalties
• The Sentencing Project – Report of the Sentencing Project to the United Nations Human Rights Committee
• H.R.3245 – Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
• Pew Trusts – Reexamining Mandatory Minimum Sentences