The Case Against Mandatory Minimums

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:07:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Harvard Crimson praises Massachusetts Gov. Devall Patrick for reevaluating mandatory minimum sentencing laws. So do we.

Mandatory minimum sentences eliminate a judge’s ability to fit the punishment to the crime. ... Furthermore, since the law cannot anticipate every possible situation, in some infamous situations mandatory sentencing requirements can lead to punishments that are wildly disproportionate from the offense. The example most familiar to Harvard students is a Massachusetts law that adds at least two years to a drug sentence if the violation occurred within a 1,000-foot radius of a school property. Ten of Harvard’s houses count as within such an area, as does most of the City of Boston.

The editorial's logic undermines its conclusion that more reasonable mandatory minimums might serve a beneficial purpose. There will inevitably be circumstances under which a mandatory minimum will be widely understood to be unfair. Sentencing judges should always have the freedom to show mercy where mercy is deserved.

< Loaded Questions From The Federalist Society | S.D. Jury Rejects Death Penalty for Deaf, Woman Killer >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Case Against Mandatory Minimums | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

"mandatory minimums" (none / 0) (#1)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:44:24 AM EST

will be eliminated and there are very valid arguments for some of them.

For example, most people do not have a problem with statutes which forbid probation when a gun is used in a violent crime, but that is a "mandatory minimum" in effect even if it is not usually called that.

Most people do not have a problem with the concept of mandatory incarceration for repeat offenders. Many people have problems with the length of sentences required in some cases, but you would have a hard time finding people who would say that a law requiring, for example, at least a year in prison for a 4th felony conviction.

: Well (none / 0) (#3)
by peacrevol on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:56:39 AM EST

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with that agrument for a mandatory minimum. IMO, they do not do anything that would not already be done by the judges anyway. The judges would likely set a sort of standard for offenses. Then deviation from the standard would depend on the particular offense. It seems so logical to me that previous court cases should serve as a guidline for reasonable sentencing, and judges should judge based on each individual case. Why not just do that?

The National Bar Association has stated (none / 0) (#2)
by JSN on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:20:28 AM EST

that the real problem is the overuse of incarceration. Mandatory minimum sentences increase the length of confinement, negate the use of good time credit (which means the prisoner has no incentive for good behavior increasing the risk to the staff) and results in a number of situations where the punishment does not fit the crime.

Incarceration is costly the average for Iowa prisoners is $64/day or $200 million per year(for 8,600 prisoners) for a state with a population of 3 million. If mandatory minimum sentences become an issue in Iowa it will be because there is a proposal to spend about $250 million to upgrade and expand the prison system.

Twelve states have reduced the size of their prison population using a variety of methods but a common feature is that they revised their sentencing systems. I suspect they concluded they were paying more for retribution than they could afford.

peacervol (none / 0) (#4)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:00:27 PM EST

What you say makes no sense. The reason for mandatory minimums is to prevent judges from imposing lesser sentences than the legislature deems appropriate. If in fact there was no probability of that happening then the mandatory minimuns would obviously then have no real world effect and not be a matter of much concern. If it were not for the fact that mandatory minimums obviously DO PREVENT some judges from imposing lesser sentences that they would impose in the absence of the MM then why would anyone care about their existence. It's not just an academic debate, MMs very much do affect sentences in cases where they apply.

JSN (none / 0) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:17:46 PM EST

I agree with most of what you say, but the part about negating "good time" is misleading, at best.

In the federal system, good time is awarded to prisoners who were sentenced to mandatory minimums and can result in prisoners serving less actual time than the "mandatory minimum sentence" which refers to what the judge imposes and no the length served as detewrmined administratively by BOP. BOP awards (if "earned") 54 days per year served in a BOP facility so, a person subject to a 10 year sentence who earns all his possible good time serves approximately 8 1/2 years (possibly some of it in a community confinement setting at the end of the term.

The REAl issues in that regard are the relative "stinginess" of the possible GT credi. (The abolition of parole (early release) in the federal system is also a huge factor with respect to all the many many people either not serving MM sentences or sentenced to terms above the MM.)

Most state systems also still award GT to people "sentenced" to mandatory minimum terms (there may be some that do not, but I know of none).

You would be correct if the judges always (none / 0) (#6)
by JSN on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:31:52 PM EST

gave the maximum sentence but in fact they do not.


: huh? (none / 0) (#8)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 03:52:02 PM EST

You'll have to explain why you think the fact judges often give less than the maximum possible sentence changes anything I said.
Let's suppose a person is facing a federal sentence with a MM of 10 and the maximum is 40. If the judge gives a 10 year sentence the person. the person can receive good time and serve approx. 8 1/2 years. if the judge gives a sentence of 20 the release date w/ Gt is approx. 17-- how does the fact those are less than the max make a difference?

judicial judgment (none / 0) (#7)
by diogenes on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 03:01:29 PM EST

Mandatory minimums for gun or drug possession crimes make it easy to give prison time to truly bad guys when witnesses are too scared/intimidated to testify against them.
Sunday School teachers arrested on a first offense usually will be allowed to plead down far enough to not be caught in this mandatory minimum net, even here in Rockefeller-law laden New York State.

If there is no available testimony... (none / 0) (#9)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 04:01:08 PM EST

people won't get convicted (assuming a lawyer with even a slow, weak pulse). If they are not convicted there will be no sentence, so that argument does not hold water.

In my experience there is rarely a problem of lack of willing witnesses in drug cases. Quite the contrary, with substantial assistance motions being the key to exempting the defendant from an MM, there is frequently a queue of folks very eager to help themselves by testifying.

As for your Sunday school teacher if he is caught doing something to which a MM can be applied (as opposed to just being a user/possessor) he will VERY OFTEN not be able to strike a deal to a charge that does no carry the MM and THAT reality is one of the primary problems with MMs. A first time offender who sells 1/4 oz. of the half he bought so he can afford to satisfy his habit, will get at least 5 years in the federal system if he is convicted (and doesn't rat someone out well enough to get a Sa motion).