Several qualities are common with all criminal sentences, regardless of whether they occur at the state or federal level. For example, sentences may be imposed that are either concurrent or consecutive (e.g., for committing two robberies, the defendant could be given 5 years each). If the sentences are ordered to run concurrently, the defendant will serve 5 years in total. If the sentences are to run consecutively, the defendant will serve 10 years in prison).
Most state legislatures have determined that an appropriate punishment fits each crime. This punishment may include anything from paying a simple fine to actual prison time. There are two sentencing laws to determine the sentence to be applied in a particular case: sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum statutes.
What are Sentencing Guidelines?
While a judge has discretion in applying punishment in many criminal cases, the state and federal criminal sentencing guidelines have been articulated to help them avoid imposing sentences that are unconstitutional, inconsistent, or unfair. The idea has been to create a set of tools that a judge can use to harmonize the sentence they issue in one case with other similar cases.
Sentencing guidelines offer recommended sentences based on a combination of the defendant’s criminal history and the type of crime the defendant committed. Essentially, each type of crime is awarded a certain number of base points. The number of points can go up (for instance, if a firearm was used) or down (e.g. if the defendant did not participate in the robbery but was the getaway driver). The total number of points indicates how many years (calculated in months) long the sentence should be.
Note, however, that sentencing guidelines can vary greatly from state to state, and the federal government has its own federal sentencing guidelines, which can be quite different from a state’s set of guidelines. Therefore, while state sentencing guidelines may improve consistency within the state, on a national level, there is still a lot of disparity.
Sentencing guidelines have a minimum and maximum number of years the offender may be imprisoned. A minimum sentence dictates the least time a person may be imprisoned before becoming eligible for release.
What are Mandatory Minimums?
A mandatory minimum sentence is exactly what it sounds like – a required minimum sentence for a specific crime. In theory, this seems fair – everyone convicted of a particular crime receives the same punishment no matter what. In reality, it effectively removes any consideration of the unique circumstances of the crime or the defendant’s history, mandating severe punishments for offenses committed by people.
Mandatory minimum sentence rules have been promulgated by all 50 states and by the federal government. Most mandatory minimum sentences apply to drug offenses, but they have also been enacted for other crimes, including certain gun, pornography, and economic offenses.
The court must give at least the mandatory minimum sentence to a person convicted of a crime, no matter what the unique circumstances of the offender or the offense are. Sentencing guidelines recognize a judge’s discretion to vary sentencing according to the specific facts presented for each case. Unlike guidelines, mandatory sentence statutes take such discretion out of the hands of the judge. The judge cannot order a lesser amount of time than what is dictated by the sentencing statute.
For example, under mandatory sentencing laws, possession of 28 grams of crack cocaine will result in a sentence of 5 years in prison without parole. The court must give this sentence, even if it is too harsh for the offender, their role in the offense, or the nature of the crime. Mandatory minimums are based only on the drug’s type and weight, which prevents courts from considering other important facts, like whether the offender is nonviolent or a drug addict, not dangerous to the community, or played a minor role in the crime.
Legislators anticipated that harsh mandatory sentences would work as a deterrent to keep people from committing crimes. Afraid of the consequences, they would think twice. Unfortunately, this logic failed to consider things like the ineffectiveness of prison as a successful deterrent to criminal behavior, substance abuse addiction, and the effects of early trauma. In addition, the logic completely disregards systemic racism and the fact that mandatory minimums disproportionately impact African Americans.
Why is Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Controversial for Drug Offenses?
Mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses are controversial. Those who oppose mandatory minimums argue that these sentences are inflexible and were enacted as a hidden way to impose longer sentences. Opponents also cite the following problems with mandatory sentencing:
- Mandatory minimum sentences make no pretense of rehabilitating the offender (such as sentencing them to drug rehabilitation instead of jail).
- Mandatory minimum sentences do not allow the judge to consider each offender’s mitigating factors. Mandatory minimums essentially take the sentence-deciding role out of the hands of the judge.
- Because they now imprison more people than before the minimums were passed, mandatory minimums are alleged to contribute to prison overcrowding.
- As they have been executed, mandatory minimums disproportionately lead to the imprisonment of racial minorities and women.
- Mandatory minimums fail to focus on punishing \the individuals at the top of the drug pyramid, instead leading to the overwhelming arrest of drug addicts and non-violent offenders.
- Prosecutors armed with the threat of mandatory minimum sentences can use them as a tool to achieve guilty pleas. Rather than going to trial and risking spending a long time in prison, people accused of crimes often prefer to enter into plea bargains, even for crimes they didn’t commit. The threat of a mandatory minimum is enough to force innocent people to relinquish their right to have their cases heard in court.
Many judges are frustrated, particularly when it comes to non-violent drug offenses. One federal judge on NPR.org called it “a travesty” that the mandatory minimums impose the same consequences on people addicted to drugs who commit drug crimes only to obtain drugs for themselves as they would for high-level drug traffickers.
Long mandatory sentences have dramatically increased prison populations. One study by the National Research Council found that, between 1980 and 2010, half of the massive 222% increase in the prison population was due to longer sentencing. The frequency of life sentences has also increased substantially. A study by The Sentencing Project found an 11% increase in people serving life sentences between 2008 and 2012.
Do I Need a Lawyer for Help with a Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentence?
Mandatory minimums are so named because they are mandatory and offer limited exceptions. Mandatory minimum sentences tie a judge’s hands, which may result in the imposition of a harsh sentence regardless of the circumstances of your case.
You should also consult with an attorney to determine whether there is a “safety valve” exception for low-level offenders based on your specific circumstances and whether your cooperation with the government can adjust your sentence.
Drug sentencing is incredibly complex and may involve several different statutes, regulations, and guidelines. Consulting with a criminal attorney who regularly deals with drug sentencing is a smart decision to ensure you are getting the best legal advice about how to handle your case.
