Mandatory sentencing
Mandatory sentencing refers to laws that impose fixed prison terms for specific crimes, removing judicial discretion in assigning sentences. Originating in the early days of the United States, mandatory sentences have evolved significantly over the centuries, particularly in response to public concerns regarding crime and drug abuse. During the 1980s and 1990s, the implementation of mandatory sentencing guidelines led to a dramatic increase in prison populations, fueled by a national "war on drugs" and the establishment of strict penalties for drug-related offenses.
Critics of mandatory sentencing argue that these laws disproportionately affect nonviolent offenders, often resulting in lengthy prison terms for relatively minor infractions. The mandatory minimum sentences established during this era, particularly for drug offenses, have been criticized for creating significant disparities in sentencing, especially between crack and powder cocaine users. Supporters, however, contend that such laws promote consistency and fairness in sentencing.
Over the years, there have been efforts to reform mandatory sentencing laws, particularly concerning nonviolent drug offenders. Landmark Supreme Court rulings in the 2000s prompted changes in how these laws are applied, leading to a reevaluation of sentencing practices by the Justice Department. Ongoing discussions about mandatory sentencing continue to reflect broader societal debates about justice, equity, and the balance between public safety and rehabilitation.
Mandatory sentencing
SIGNIFICANCE: The adoption of mandatory sentencing guidelines during the 1980s and 1990s limited judicial discretion in sentencing offenders and contributed to sharp increases in prison populations.
Mandatory sentences for certain offenses have existed since the foundation of the United States. In the early days of the republic, specific sentences were imposed for certain crimes, including gossiping and murder. Early mandatory sentences reflected the forms of punishment used at the time and ranged from dunking stools for gossipers to hanging for convicted murderers.
Special habitual-offender laws that could impose life imprisonment for third felony convictions became common during the twentieth century. However, broader uses of mandatory minimum sentences did not develop until mid-century, when increasing public concern about drug abuse led to the creation of new sentences for drug offenses. For example, in 1952, the US Congress passed the Boggs Act, which specified minimum sentences for federal narcotics offenses, with no possibility of parole or probation after first convictions. Many states then passed legislation modeled on the Boggs Act that specified mandatory minimum sentences for violations of their own drug laws.
During the 1960s, mandatory sentences were heavily criticized for eliminating judicial discretion, treating first-time offenders as harshly as violent criminals and for the failure of the sentences to reduce drug violations. Such criticisms helped prompt Congress to pass the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which repealed most of the federal mandatory minimums for drug offenses. However, the 1970s saw a push for more uniform federal sentencing policies and the elimination of indeterminate sentencing in favor of determinate sentences, without the possibility of parole. At the same time, some states were enacting mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses on their own.
In 1973, New York passed a series of laws that required mandatory fifteen-year prison sentences for possession or sales of small quantities of narcotics. Michigan passed a similar law in 1978. Michigan’s law was dubbed the “650 lifer law” because it required mandatory life imprisonment for the possession, sale, or conspiracy to sell or possess 650 grams of cocaine or heroin. By 1983, forty states had similar mandatory sentencing laws.
Sentencing Reform in the 1980s
The bulk of sentencing reform took place in the 1980s, due in large part to the Reagan administration’s war on drugs. In 1984, Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act and the Sentencing Reform Act, which transformed the federal system of indeterminate sentencing to a system of determinate sentencing. Parole was eliminated and the United States Sentencing Commission was established to develop federal sentencing guidelines for judges. The Crime Control Act successfully limited judicial discretion on sentences for drug crimes, while adding new mandatory sentences for other crimes. The new requirements included adding five years to drug-offense sentences for using or carrying guns during drug crimes or crimes of violence. The law also mandated fifteen-year sentences for simple possession of firearms by persons with three previous convictions for burglary or robbery.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 established most of the drug-related mandatory minimums, including five- and ten-year sentences tied to quantities of illegal drugs. Further adding to the mandatory minimum sentences, the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1988 mandated minimum sentences of five years for simple possession of crack cocaine; however, simple possession of other drugs remained a misdemeanor. The mandatory minimum for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine, often referred to as the 100:1 ratio, required five-year sentences for possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine or 5 grams of crack cocaine. The act made crack cocaine the only drug to carry a federally mandated sentence for simple possession. Crack cocaine was predominantly used by Black individuals, while most users of powder cocaine were White. Another significant provision of the 1988 law was an increase in penalties for drug conspiracy, which could be applied equally to both major dealers and low-level participants in drug deals.
“Get Tough on Crime” Era
The punitive sentencing reforms adopted during the 1990s reflected the so-called “get tough on crime” attitudes of the public and the administration at the time. During that decade, additional federal mandatory sentencing laws were enacted, including some that did not apply to drugs. Many states also legislated mandatory sentences for felons possessing firearms or using firearms in the commission of crimes.
Washington (1993) and California (1994) both enacted mandatory life sentences for offenders receiving third felony convictions. Similar laws mandating sentences for habitual offenders were on the books in most states but were not widely used. However, they became an important issue in the 1990s after some highly publicized crimes, including the murder of a young girl in California by a repeat offender. California’s new law, dubbed “three strikes and you’re out,” set mandatory twenty-five-year to life sentences for offenders convicted of third felonies. California’s law became controversial because it applied to any third felony conviction. As a consequence, some highly publicized cases arose when nonviolent offenders were sentenced to exceptionally long prison terms for crimes as minor as shoplifting.
Mandatory sentencing laws were also heavily criticized for giving disproportionate punishment to nonviolent drug offenders by sentencing them to long prison terms. Appeals were made to Congress for relief, and in 1994 Congress enacted a so-called “safety valve” exception to the mandatory minimum sentences. The safety valve applied to nonviolent, low-level, and first-time drug offenders, but its eligibility criteria were so narrow that nonviolent drug offenders continued to be sentenced to long prison terms under the mandatory laws. The only way most defendants could avoid mandatory minimum sentences was to provide law enforcement with “substantial assistance” by disclosing information on other drug dealers or testifying against them in court.
Proponents of mandatory sentencing laws argue that these laws provide desirable sentencing uniformity. Critics argue that mandatory sentencing laws have placed unnecessary financial strains on the criminal justice system while failing to reduce the numbers of drug violations. Appeals have been made to Congress to address the large disparity in sentences awarded to crack cocaine and powder cocaine users. Congress has responded by introducing bills that would increase sentences for powder cocaine offenses while retaining the mandatory five-year minimum for simple possession of crack cocaine. Meanwhile, additional mandatory sentencing laws continue to be proposed in Congress.
In 2005, the US Supreme Court held in United States v. Booker that the US Sentencing Guidelines, which allowed judges to enhance sentences based on facts not reviewed by a jury, were a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. In 2013, in a similar case, Alleyne v. United States, the Supreme Court held that if any element of a crime increases the mandatory minimum punishment, it must be disclosed to the jury and found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. In response, the US Justice Department announced that it would refine its policy regarding mandatory minimums for certain nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, reserving severe mandatory minimum penalties for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers.
Bibliography
Allen, Harry E., Edward J. Latessa, and Bruce S. Ponder. Corrections in America: An Introduction. 14th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2015. Print.
Clark, J., J. Austin, and D. A. Henry. Three Strikes and You’re Out: A Review of State Legislation. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Government Printing Office, 1997. Print.
Cherry, Jason. "Importance of Investigating Sentencing Enhancements." Legal Digest, 6 Aug. 2020, leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-importance-of-investigating-sentencing-enhancements. Accessed 8 July 2024.
Demleitner, Nora V., Douglas A. Berman, Marc L. Miller, and Ronald F. Wright. Sentencing Law and Policy: Cases, Statutes, and Guidelines. New York: Aspen, 2003. Print.
Krantz, Sheldon, and Lynn Branham. The Law of Sentencing, Corrections, and Prisoners’ Rights. St. Paul: West, 1997. Print.
Stith, Kate, and Jose A. Cabranes. Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1998. Print.
Tonry, Michael. Reconsidering Indeterminate and Structured Sentencing. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 1999. Print.
Tonry, Michael. Sentencing Matters. New York: Oxford UP, 1996. Print.
"US: Repeal Mandatory Federal Drug Sentences." Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, 2 Feb. 2016, https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/02/us-repeal-mandatory-federal-drug-sentences?gad‗source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwnK60BhA9EiwAmpHZw-7‗3tTI0OT‗tNXUWGploZIfX5jxYNVomwYAgHtV6okEJJxNv0qd1hoCPKIQAvD‗BwE. Accessed 8 July 2024.
"When Is a Mandatory Minimum Sentence Not Mandatory Under the First Step Act?" Congressional Research Service, 2 Feb. 2023, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10910. Accessed 8 July 2024.
Zimring, Franklin E., G. Hawkins, and S. Kamin. Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You’re Out in California. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.