A mandatory minimum sentence is a sentence that, should someone be convicted of it, a judge cannot sentence someone to less than. As an example, In 1973, New York State introduced mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of more than four ounces (112g) of a hard drug. Thus, should you be convicted for possession of that amount, you will be sentenced to at least 15 years. You may be paroled before then, but your sentence will be at least 15 years. Another example is the florida "10-20-Life" rule (10 years for possessing a gun during a crime, 20 years for firing a gun during a crime, life for shooting someone whether they survive or not).

Mandatory minimums are becoming increasing common in the United States, although recently the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been judged to be advisory rather than mandatory. Other countries have started to adopt mandatory minimum sentencing as well.

I am generally of the opinion that while sentencing guidelines are a good idea, mandatory sentencing ties the hands of judges. It limits their ability to take into account mitigating circumstance, especially in drug cases and first time offenses. There is some argument that mandatory sentencing has a deterrent effect, as it puts in large letters the sentence someone will receive for a crime, but I don't know if that really factors that much into someone's decision making process when choosing to commit a crime or not. A judge conducting a case has, in my opinion, a considerably better view of the sentence suitable in a case than a rulebook, and the wisdom of the judge should be the major factor in determining sentence.

An accompanying question, and one I have less of a clear-cut idea on, is whether maximum sentences should be mandatory as well.

I'd be interested to know what other people think.

Depends on the circumstances, I would say. I can imagine situations where judges are way too hard or way too soft and you would want to tie their hands, at least for the time being (so sunset clauses would be important if they can be implemented right into the bill)

As for the present, I have more reason to believe maximum mandatory sentences than maximum minimum. Our prison system is pretty gargantuan right now and full of non-violent offenders, which seems outright idiotic to me. But either way, my knowledge on the justice system isn't strong enough to hold very strong opinions on this. I am hesitant to even vote on judges at election time.

honestly, the fact that judges and sheriffs are elected in the US has always blown my mind a little. I tend to want the best law enforcement official for the job, not the most popular.

Mandatory minimum's 95%. There should be a small loophole law that allows judges to alter the sentences a bit, but only in unusual circumstances (I'm thinking in cases with mentally impaired persons who might not understand what they're doing, but I'm sure there might be a few others) That said, I'm sick and tired of hearing criminals getting off scott-free, despite the fact that their crimes are often ruining peoples lives, or at the least, seriously injuring them. (When I say injuring, I'm not confining the word to simple mean physically injuring, but also economically, mentally, socially etc.)

when you say you're sick and tired of hearing about it, is it something that you think happens a lot, or just something that you think gets reported a lot?

and in association to this, is it a greater injustice for one person to get a sentence you deem too light, or for one person to get a sentence you deem too heavy?

other: mandatory minimum sentencing should exist for violent crimes only.

My friend is a lawyer so I hear about criminals getting off light fairly often, usually because the judges aren't willing to put more people into jail or because they spent too much time in limbo waiting for their case to be heard in a detention center.

It depends on the crime. For example with a crime like rape or a similarly violent crime, the injustice would be a sentence too light whereas for a lesser crime, such as theft under 1000$, the injustice would be a sentence too heavy. You'd really have to specify the question for me to go one way or the other.

Only for capital crimes, I suppose. Though what are capital crimes? Murder? Rape?

a capital crime is usually defined as being one that capital punishment can be issued for

The idea, of course, is that the "community" gets a role in law enforcement decision (same with the election of the District Attorney); i.e. if the police are behavior badly, you vote in a new sheriff; if people aren't getting punished enough (or too much), get a new DA and some new judges. Does it get you a "better" judge if they're appointed? I don't know, but they are certainly more accountable. I also very much agree with the practice of appointing appellate judges (because they're supposed to make decisions based on "the law" and not the community).

I'm torn, though, on mandatory sentencing. In general, I don't think it's a good idea. I'm all for judicial discretion (particularly coupled with elections). But at the same time, mandatory sentencing eliminates the possibility of bias (as well as mercy). It would be hard to claim a racist or sexist bias in sentencing if it was as simple as do X get Y (although, of course, the reason that the death penalty cannot be mandatory is the fear that a jury might not find a person guilty of the crime if they don't want him to die, also we want community morals involved).

So, on the one hand, they're too "bright-line" in a world full of gray. On the other hand, they cut down on the possibility of bias (or accusations of bias), and that seems like a good thing.

For the sake of consistent punishments for crimes there should be minimum sentences in place, and those minimal sentences should be the determining factor when considering circumstances. Not judges whose ruling will likely differ from judge to judge.

Heavily recommended sentences, which allows for exceptions in exceptional cases.

A foolish endeavor, as it does indeed bound the hand of the judges. It also tries to draw a line in a gray zone. Say if I am being mugged violently, and I pull the fire alarm on a nearby building to save myself from serious harm and possible trauma, do I get a mandatory minimum sentence since I was guilty of pulling that fire alarm? What if I double park outside my elderly mothers house because she is having medical issues and I need to rush her to the hospital right then? It would basically make all "innocent" crimes such as those above mandatory to punishment.

Mitigating circumstances should be allowed for so no, I don't think there should be a set mimimum - at least not one which is high.

This.

There should not be minimums for other crimes. Even then, minimums are probably not a good thing in the justice system. It would be more viable if we had less nonviolent offenders and people imprisoned for drug use out of jail (or at least help them commute to parole more efficiently). For that to work, there needs to be other reforms first (such as drug decriminalization, improved laws, etc.)

I think that those are rather bad examples, because it would be hard to imagine that you would be prosecuted in those cases (although in your parking example, you'd probably get ticketed... and I'm not sure what sort of other sentencing you're thinking of).

Remember, the most powerful person in the criminal justice system is the A.D.A. who decides what to charge you with (and if to charge you at all). Do you really think that a prosecutor will indict you for pulling the fire alarm (or, as we were taught as kids, to scream "fire" if you were getting attacked)?

Mandatory sentencing may have problems, but these cases just keep discretion where it already is: the DA's office (now, whether or not that's a good thing is a different question, I suppose)

Mandatory minimums should exist for violent crimes and drug offenses. If its just a petty theft, then there shouldn't be mandatory sentences.

Why drug offenses? You like overcrowded prisons and gang recruitment?

Well, I suppose it would go without saying then. It seems like it would be a given. If it's potentially worthy of the death penalty, it would logically follow that someone should get atleast say...25 years for murder?

One of these things is not like the other.....

I don't like the idea of a mandatory minimum sentence. It tends to tie the hands of judges as to what they can do, and the same thing for prosecution. Having a mandatory minimum sentence for non-violent crimes is even more asinine.

Well, in the US, there is a grid used to determine exactly what range a criminal offender falls under. Basically, it ranks your crime on a level of severity (offense level), then matches that up with a number designated based on your criminal history. You match the two up on the chart. At the point it matches up, there is a range of months that the judge should base their sentence on. So, it does take into effect criminal history. A person with a level 1 history will have a lower range of months to be sentenced to than a person that has a level 3 or level 5 criminal history. Also, with the range of months system, it does give the judges the ability to take into account mitigating factors. Their wisdom is taken into account. Let's say it's a level 8 offense committed by a level 2 criminal history person. The judge has the range of 4-10 months. If they feel the person has circumstance that deserves less, the can give them 4 instead of 10.

Here is a copy of the actual chart:




Also, if there really are mitigating factors, judge has the discretion to honor a plea bargain to a lesser crime, then base sentencing off the lower range offense level numbers.

I understand that, my question is whether such sentencing guidelines should be advisory or compulsory

Minimum sentencing should be advisory.

Let judges determine sentencing based on judicial precedent, not legislative demands.

Plus, sometimes, there actually are extenuating circumstances which might influence how an offender should be punished (if at all).

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this type of thing yet, but I'll put it out there. I see a lot of focus on extenuating circumstances as to why minimums would be bad.

But lets use the rich and famous for an example.

Dante Stalworth, pays off the family of the man he killed during a DUI and gets an extremely minimal sentence.

He pled guilty, and received a sentence of 30 days in jail, plus 1,000 hours of community service, 2 years of house arrest, and 8 years probation.[11] He has also received a life-time suspension of his Florida state driver's license.[12]

Most of us if we had done the same thing would be in jail for many years, next is from the FL website on punishments for vehicular manslaughter.

Manslaughter and Vehicular Homicide-s. 316.193 (3), F.S.

* DUI/Manslaughter: Second Degree Felony (not more than $10,000 fine and/or 15 years imprisonment).


So he could have received 15 years in prison, but because he has the money to pay the family and they testified for leniency he gets off with very little.

Is this not an argument FOR minimums?

That being said I'm not sure where I stand on all this, I can see both sides.

Okay, I am glad you do, but there are many people that are unfamiliar with exactly how they work. You also mentioned "A judge conducting a case has, in my opinion, a considerably better view of the sentence suitable in a case than a rulebook, and the wisdom of the judge should be the major factor in determining sentence" and I wanted to point out that whereas the judge didn't have free reign to sentence whatever they want, to some degree they did get to use their wisdom and decision making when choosing from the allotted months range on the table.

One of the reasons that they do not (well, did not) have total discretion to choose is to safeguard people who committed the same act from getting the unequal sentences. Historically in the South, a black person may get a much harsher penalty than a white person who gets a slap on the wrist. It's also to add uniformity to sentencing, again, for fairness. As well as the whole "you know what to expect" factor. It also helped stop someone who was convicted from "25 to life" from getting paroled after 5 years.

Now, based on the Court rulings from 2005-2009, judges still should consider the Guidelines when deciding a defendant's sentence. If a judge decides within their discretion to depart from the Guidelines, the judge must explain what factors warranted the increased or decreased sentence. With Rita, when a Court of Appeals reviewed a sentence imposed through a proper application the Guidelines, it may presume the sentence is reasonable. Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007). Now the Guidelines are not only not mandatory on sentencing courts; they are also not to be presumed reasonable ( Nelson v. US, No. 08-5657 (S. Ct. Jan. 26, 2009)), rather, that presumption is a prerogative of an appellate court.

Actually those examples are spot on as if there were minimum sentences I would be charged, for no question I was guilty and by law I would need at the minimum a minimum sentencing.

I'm not sure how (or really what you're saying here). Prosecutors have absolutely no obligation to prosecute you for anything (guilty or otherwise). It strikes me as exceedingly unlikely you would be prosecuted in those cases. I know you're big on guarantees, but I'm not sure how you know you'd be charged. Unless you, personally, did those things, but still given the discretion awarded to the prosecutor, there's no telling what a different prosecutor would do.

The effect, I think, of mandatory minimums is to move the discretion in the system more firmly into the prosecutors office and away from judges. A prosecutor will decide what to charge a person with, with the minimums firmly in mind (and would be less likely to overcharge). If a judge had free reign to determine sentencing, I think the prosecutors would overcharge and then ask for a lighter sentence... but that's just my inclination.