The Truth About Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Mandatory minimum sentencing isn’t something college age kids talk about. In fact, it’s not even something adults really talk about. But it is an issue that everyone should be talking about because it has the ability to affect everybody. Many of you may not even really know what mandatory minimum sentencing is. For those who don’t know, mandatory minimum sentences are prison sentences created by congress that require those convicted of a certain crime to serve an automatic prison term. These are often referred to as “one size fits all sentencing”. These laws seem like a good idea in theory, a person breaks the law and is automatically required to serve a predetermined number of years in prison. The reality is that these laws often lead to unfairly extensive sentences. The biggest problem with these laws is that they take away the judges’ ability to deliver sentences with regards to context. Usually when judge rules over a case a defendant will either be found guilty or innocent and judge will review the case and its unique circumstances with attention to sentencing guidelines hand out a fair sentence but with mandatory minimum sentences the judge is mandated to give the defendant the minimum prison term even if they believe it to be too harsh, because with mandatory minimum sentencing all prison terms are given regardless of context and most people will agree that context is not something you can just overlook. Taking away the context of a situation leaves out vital information that makes it unique. That is why many judges are opposed to these mandatory minimum sentences. We need to remember that just about every circumstance you can find yourself in is unique. 

Most of these mandatory minimum sentencing laws were passed in the 1980’s and 1990’s when politicians believed they had to appear tough on crime or they wouldn’t get elected. These laws are a main contributor the to exuberant eight fold increase in the U.S. prison population since the 1970’s.  A vast majority of mandatory sentences are applied to drug crimes. This often has nonviolent and first time offenders sentenced with years and years of prison time. Two examples of this include one man receiving a life sentence for having three ounces of methamphetamine in his possession and another where a man sold small amounts of marijuana while he happened to have a gun on his person and received 55 years with out parole.  Both of these sentences are lower than what you would receive if were a convicted rapist, child molester, or a terrorist. In what crazy messed up world is that at all fair or even okay. One of the biggest arguments in favor of mandatory minimum sentencing laws is that they are a deterrent for criminals committing these crimes but there is absolutely no proof that these insanely long sentences actually keep people from committing these crimes. The truth is that mandatory minimum sentencing ruins lives. It not only ruins the lives of the person convicted of the crime but also the lives of that person’s family and friends.  I am not saying that I don’t want criminals to be punished for their crimes because I absolutely do, everyone does. I just believe that the punishment they receive should fit the crime committed and far too often mandatory minimum sentencing prevents that from happening. If you want more information on mandatory minimum sentencing you can click on these links.

http://famm.org/mandatory-minimums/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/02/us-repeal-mandatory-federal-drug-sentences

http://famm.org/sentencing-101/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDVmldTurqk

• truth
• unfair
• unjust