Mandatory minimum sentencing is laws courts that oblige judges to hand down compulsory jail terms for specific offenses. Usually, the punishments prescribed by mandatory minimum law are more severer than punishments that do not have mandatory minimums. These laws do not consider if the punishment fits the offense or offender or is obligated safety of the public. Similarly, judges are barred from considering special factors, the role of the offender, the intention of the offender, the seriousness of the injury, and the likelihood of reoffending. There have been calls to repeal or reform mandatory minimum sentencing laws because they lead to unreasonable sentences, the binding of judges, prison congestion, racial discrepancies in sentencing, and high criminal justice costs.
Mandatory minimum sentences are harsh and severe. Recently, judges have stated that mandatory minimum sentences forced them to hand out harsh sentences to offenders. The USSC noted that offenders incarcerated for an offense with a mandatory minimum are given jail terms about four times longer than the average length of sentences offenders incarcerated for other offenses (Neely, 2020). Hence, offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum spend more time in prison than those who have committed more severe offenses (Neely, 2020). Hence, this unfairness is unwarranted and supports the calls for repealing mandatory minimum sentences to promote fairness.
Mandatory minimum sentencing restraint judges from doing work correctly. Sentencing is supposed to be done by a neutral judge. However, mandatory minimums overturn this arrangement by making the prosecutor a single adversary as the final decision maker preventing the judge from considering the offender’s history, accountability, and family responsibilities (Ramsey, 2022). For example, if a prosecutor charges an individual with a 10-year mandatory minimum at the onset of a case and the individual is found guilty, the judge has no power to alter the sentence and is legally required to hand out a 10-year sentence to the person regardless of the status of the person in the society. The judge is not allowed to factor in the results of the jail term to the person, show compassion, or reduce the sentence (Adelman & Dietrich, 2022). Also, judges are not allowed to exercise discretion and factor in pertinent circumstances to show leniency to the offender. The only way to resolve this stalemate is to repeal mandatory minimums by allowing judges to consider relevant factors before sentencing.
Another reason for calls to repeal or reform mandatory minimums is that it is costly and does not effectively lessen crime. The costs of jailing people for a long time are huge, yet mandatory sentences have not been conclusively shown to reduce crime effectively. According to Federal Register Data of 2020, the average annual cost of incarceration fee (COIF) of a federal inmate in a federal facility was $ 120. 59 per day (Ramsey, 2022). This figure is too high considering the state and federal government’s struggles to meet needs such as education and health. Also, mandatory minimums have led to the imprisonment of low-level and non-violent offenders who do not even spend this amount in a day outside the jail. Hence, the cost of incarceration should be considered when repealing or reforming mandatory minimums.
Statistics have shown that mandatory minimum has led to unjust and inexplicable incarceration of people of color, particularly African-Americans. Mandatory minimums have created racial disparities and obliterated claims that the criminal justice system is unbiased. Mandatory minimums have led African –American individuals to serve longer sentences than their White counterparts for the same offenses (Kovera, 2019). For example, prosecutors bring mandatory minimum three times more often against African-American defendants than whites. In some cases, the rate at which mandatory minimums are brought against African American individuals is equal to that of Whites despite the latter having a higher population. African American are imprisoned five times more than White, and it is apparent that mandatory minimums are a huge threat to African Americans’ freedoms and rights (Kovera, 2019). Also, prosecutors charge African Americans and Latino individuals more frequently than whites with possessing several illicit drugs as long as they initiate a mandatory minimum charge. Thus, mandatory minimums should be reformed to protect the rights and freedom of people of color in court.
Overall, the calls to repeal or reform mandatory minimum sentencing laws are due to unreasonable sentences, shackling of judges, prison overcrowding, racial discrepancies in sentencing, and high criminal justice costs they bring (Kovera, 2019). I believe mandatory minimums are meant to deter offenders, reduce crime, and control judicial discretion. I agree that mandatory minimums deter and reduce crime because mandatory sentences are harsh and make people fear crime. Also, some judges may be too lenient, and some crimes – First-degree murder and rape- are too intentional and serious and require a mandatory minimum sentence to deter crime, even to a certain degree. An individual cannot claim to have been forced by the forces of nature to commit a first-degree murder or rape by forces of nature. First-degree and rape should have mandatory minimum sentences to communicate that legislature and judiciary are taking stern actions against such crimes. Also, these two crimes demean the dignity of human life and body, and serious actions should be taken against them. They also have far-reaching consequences for the victim and family. Murder leads to the victim’s life loss, and if they had dependents, the consequences are worse because they would have lost a breadwinner. Rape makes the victim feel shameful, as well as her or his family. In some cases, rape victims are stigmatized and even blamed for their predicaments.
References
Adelman, L., & Deitrich, J. (2022). Advice for a New Sentencing Commission: Stronger Advocacy for Abolishing Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 35(1), 9-11. https://online.ucpress.edu/fsr/article-abstract/35/1/9/194823
Kovera, M. B. (2019). Racial disparities in the criminal justice system: Prevalence, causes, and a search for solutions. Journal of Social Issues, 75(4), 1139-1164. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Margaret-Kovera/publication/336949548_Racial_Disparities_in_the_Criminal_Justice_System_Prevalence_Causes_and_a_Search_for_Solutions/links/5f215d6592851cd302c5bbc6/Racial-Disparities-in-the-Criminal-Justice-System-Prevalence-Causes-and-a-Search-for-Solutions.pdf
Neely, C. R. (2020). Mandatory Minimums: Equal but Unequal. Available at SSRN 3771980. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3771980
Ramsey, J. (2022). Minimum sentences, maximum suffering: a proposal to reform mandatory minimum sentencing. Conference Paper.https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1291&context=hsgconference
write