Source: sentencingproject.org 2/14/24
Eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing laws is essential to creating a more just and equitable criminal justice system.
Eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing laws is essential to creating a more just and equitable criminal justice system. Widespread evidence shows that mandatory minimum sentences produce substantial harm with no overall benefit to crime control.1 Determined by lawmakers rather than judges, these sentences represent a uniquely American approach to sentencing that has accelerated prison growth. They constrain judicial discretion, deepen racial disparities in the criminal legal system, and cause far-reaching harm to individuals, families, and communities.2
Despite building bipartisan agreement that such sentences are a policy failure, mandatory minimum sentences continue to be promoted as a tool to combat crime, even as the public signals waning support. This fact sheet identifies the main issues associated with mandatory minimum sentences. It documents the modest progress toward ending them, as well as efforts to reinstate them, and offers solutions to hasten change that will aid in ending mass incarceration.
Ummm… So? I don’t see much mention of any sex crimes in these scale back proposals. The only mention of sexual nature was “…. the two new laws expanded the definition of rape and prohibited the use of probation in a wider range of crimes of a sexual nature”.
Clearly this wasn’t at all to stop mandatory minimums for anything sexual. Nothing is ever going to change… Is it..
@H n H, mandatory minimums shouldn’t actually even exist for any crime. The fact is that the judiciary is a separate governmental branch which should have the authority to impose the appropriate punishment that they see fit that is not longer than the statutory maximums. The imposed sentence should always be a judiciary decision.
Some state courts have agreed that mandatory minimums are in fact a violation of the separation of powers between governmental branches but have held instead that the judiciary ought to follow the legislatively approved mandatory minimums as general guidelines for sentencing unless there is justification for not doing so. In those places, the judiciary still has the authority to sentence below mandatory minimums but must provide sound reasoning for why they are sentencing below those mandatory minimums. In those cases the state can appeal that reasoning to the appellate courts if they can show that such sentencing departures are not properly justified. In practice, the justification for a sentencing departure is already approved by the prosecution as part of the plea agreement so it is not often appealed. It is rare to get such a departure if the case ultimately goes to trial. If it wasn’t for sentencing departures from mandatory minimums, there would have been no way for me to get the deal I received.
Once those elected got the ground needed to advance minimums, it was always going to be hell to reclaim it by those who know it shouldn’t have been initially. Armies don’t advance and take ground to only give it back in war unless it is lost in battle. Elected officials have no business regulating punishments and judges should be able to mete out punishment as they see fit w/out fear of it being appealed to a higher court who could overrule them, unless it violates the 8th Amendment. Everyone spoiling for a fight for the sake of being elected and drunk on power.