Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes specify that certain criminal offenses hold a particular sentence that must be adhered to without exception. For such offenses, judges specify the maximum term but cannot sentence the offender to less than the statutory minimum. Some mandatory minimum sentences restrict parole eligibility as well. Mandatory minimum sentences exist at both the state and federal levels and are most commonly applied to repeat or habitual offending, drunk driving offenses, drug offenses, weapon offenses, and sex offenses. These statutes significantly reduce judicial discretion by eliminating a judge’s ability to take into account mitigating factors, such as past criminal history, instead by applying a one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing. After reviewing the history of mandatory minimum sentences, this article discusses sentencing reform.
History
Until the 1970s, significant attention was paid to the rehabilitation of offenders, and indeterminate sentences, which gave judges wide discretion in sentencing, dominated criminal justice systems across the United States. However, growing disillusionment with the rehabilitative model of punishment, along with simultaneous increases in violent crime rates, resulted in a decidedly punitive turn. In 1973, New York became the first state to establish mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses under New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws, with a number of states following suit. Policy makers claimed that mandatory minimum sentencing would both reduce judicial discretion and decrease disparities across sentences, while at the same time effectively reducing crime. Throughout the 1980s, legislatures used mandatory minimum sentencing as a primary tool to fight the War on Crime, with particular attention paid to gang and drug offenses. In 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act established mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug offenses and instituted the 100:1 powder-to-crack-cocaine sentencing ratio disparity. Mandatory sentencing provisions typically were enacted swiftly, with no evidence of effective crime reduction outcomes, and have dramatically increased the size of the U.S. prison population.
Mandatory minimum sentencing maintained popularity throughout the 1990s. However, by the end of the decade, concern over their detrimental effects began to grow. Now, mandatory minimum sentences are widely recognized as a primary driver of mass incarceration. A 2011 report published by the United States Sentencing Commission condemned mandatory minimum sentences, citing several consequences, including the following: (a) disproportionate burden on racial minorities and economically disadvantaged communities, (b) unjustified sentencing disparities between similar offenders, (c) unnecessarily harsh and arbitrary sentences that reach too broadly, and (d) a dramatic rise in prison population and cost.
Sentencing Reform
As early as 2000, states began reevaluating their use of mandatory minimum sentencing, with Michigan being the first state to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences in 2002. Since then, 29 states have taken steps to reduce or eliminate mandatory minimum sentences. At the federal level, there is now bipartisan support for consensus-driven sentencing and corrections reform with the goal of reducing prison overcrowding and establishing a more equitable punishment system. In 2006, the Bureau of Justice Assistance introduced the Justice Reinvestment Initiative aimed at improving the criminal justice system. The Fair Sentencing Act, passed by Congress in 2010, began to address racial disparities in crack-cocaine sentencing by reducing the amount that would trigger minimum sentencing from 100:1 to 18:1 and eliminating the 5-year minimum for first-time crack possession. Efforts to reduce the severity of mandatory minimum sentencing have already begun to shrink prison populations at both the state and federal levels.
Two bills first introduced during Barack Obama’s presidency aimed at further reducing mandatory minimum sentences at the federal level. The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 proposed a new safety valve that would apply broadly to all federal crimes that carry a mandatory minimum sentence. This would mean that, in some cases, judges would be allowed to impose a sentence less than the stated mandatory minimum. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (SRCA) of 2015 proposed making revisions in the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, as well as further reducing several other federal mandatory minimums for drug and gun offenses. Although fewer offenses would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence, the SRCA would not address the 5- to 10-year minimum sentences imposed on nearly half of all federal drug offenders. The SRCA also introduced a new mandatory minimum sentence that would impact a group not previously subjected to mandatory sentences: a 15- to 25-year minimum for federal drug offenders who have previously been convicted of a violent felony. However, the Justice Safety Valve Act and the SRCA were reintroduced in the 115th Congress (2017–2018), but as of September 2018, neither has been passed by the Congress.
Future Directions
As a result of mass incarceration, politicians are reevaluating the practices of the criminal justice system. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have supported the development of evidence-based policies that are both cost-effective and successful at reducing crime. While it may be difficult to predict the fate of mandatory sentencing at the federal level, the swing away from mandatory minimum sentences and toward alternative models of sentencing across many of the states is likely to continue as states continue to try to find ways to reduce prison populations without compromising public safety.
References:
- Clear, T., & Frost, N. (2013). The policies of the punishment imperative. In The punishment imperative (pp. 71–112). New York, NY: NYU Press.
- Porter, N. D. (2016). The state of sentencing 2015: Developments in policy and practice. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
- Subramanian, R., & Delaney, R. (2014). Playbook for change? States reconsider mandatory sentences. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.