Mandatory Minimums

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws remove judges' discretion in the sentencing process by requiring a sentence of a specific length for a convicted individual when certain criteria have been met. For example, a federal conviction for possession of half a kilogram or more of powder cocaine leads to a mandatory sentence of at least 5 years in prison. Drug cases are the most common offenses receiving mandatory minimums. While mandatory minimums have proven to be effective when targeted at higher-level offenders, they have also dramatically increased incarceration rates for nonviolent offenders and have contributed to sentencing disparities. This entry describes the objectives of mandatory minimum sentencing and examines both the effectiveness and the unintended consequences of these laws.

Before the standardization of minimum sentencing under mandatory minimum laws, judges had unlimited discretion in the sentencing of convicted individuals. Personal views regarding crime and sentencing inevitably differed among judges, so the amount of time offenders received for similar crimes varied greatly. Standardizing the base sentence of such crimes was meant to fulfill several objectives. A major goal of mandatory minimums was to reduce the sentencing disparity that had occurred as a result of judicial discretion.

Mandatory minimums were also seen as a means to deterrence and incapacitation. It was expected that offenders' knowledge that judges would impose mandatory sentences would deter potential offenders, especially drug offenders, from further involvement in crime because punishment would be serious and likely. Giving serious offenders lengthier sentences and placing them in prison would remove serious offenders from society and prevent them from additional criminal acts. These efforts at deterrence and incapacitation were also a response to public opinion that offenders were not being sufficiently punished under previous sentencing alternatives. Last, mandatory minimums were aimed at increasing offenders' cooperation and pleas. If a defendant helped in an investigation that led to prosecution of others, the judge was authorized to impose a sentence for that defendant below the mandatory minimum. Thus, it was thought, defendants would be more motivated to cooperate with authorities and to plead guilty to a lesser offense in order to reduce a mandatory minimum sentence. This anticipated increase in guilty pleas would save the government the cost of trials.