The Importance of Repealing/Reforming Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws (Essay Sample)

The Importance of Repealing/Reforming Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws Student Name Institutional Affiliation Course Instructor Date The Importance of Repealing/Reforming Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws Various states and the federal government have enacted mandatory minimum reforms, dictating predetermined prison terms for specific crimes, especially for drug offenses. However, very little is known as to the effectiveness of these reforms at the state-level in lowering incarceration rates, and whether they aid in mitigating racial-ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes. This has resulted to mandatory minimum sentencing laws being a subject of contentious debates within the legal discourse. Mandatory minimum sentences are statues requiring judges to sentence defendants to specified minimum prison terms for specific offenses or for triggering specific crimes (Craigie & Zapryanova, 2021). The assumption draws by those advocating for these laws, presume that the laws are a significant step toward curbing crime rates across the states. Critics contend that the results of such dysfunctional laws emanate from racially-biased decisions, unjust and unwarranted disparities, and procedural unfairness within the judicial system (Tonry, 2019). Examining the implications for non-violent offenders, particularly in drug-related cases, further amplifies the debate. Therefore, the imperative nature of these laws calls for a keen review toward repealing or reforming these mandatory minimum sentencing laws in light of the findings, recognizing the delicate balance required in criminal justice reform. Studies have conveyed that mandatory minimum sentence often generate disparate sentences among similarly situated offenders (Luna, 2017). According to Tonry (2019), Black and Hispanic defendants are more likely than whites and Asians to be sentenced to imprisonment, and for longer (p. 11). Nonetheless, presumptive sentencing guidelines have been working toward reducing racial disparities initially and over time, but most states lack presumptive guidelines. Craigie and Zapryanova (2021) argue that mandatory minimums are more likely to be used against Black defendants after the Booker decision (p. 7). In the United States v. Booker [2005], the majority decision made federal sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. The Court held that where sentencing guidelines allow judges to enhance sentences using facts not reviewed by juries, it is a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. These findings illuminate a disturbing pattern where individuals from racial and ethnic minorities face more severe sentences than their white counterparts for comparable offenses. Under federal mandatory minimum guidelines, judicial preferences tend to disadvantage Black males relative to their white counterparts (Craigie & Zapryanova, 2021). Such disparities emphasize the need for a careful reevaluation of the legal frameworks perpetuating racial inequities within the criminal justice system. Arguably, mandatory minimum sentencing laws, especially in drug-related cases, have a disproportionate impact on non-violent offenders (Anderson & Dummar, 2020). According to Nir and Liu (2022), mandatory sentencing laws contribute to an increase in plea disposition, as courts are often powerless to offer defendants leniency beyond the statutory minimum (p. 3). Furthermore, these laws increase prosecutorial power at sentencing, inevitably resulting in a decrease in judicial influence. Anderson and Dummar (2020) note that by establishing mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes, congress inevitably established control over a significant part of the judicial process and stripped off the judiciary’s ability to exercise discretion when sentencing. As such, the arising disparity in sentencing consequently weakens or even eliminates whatever sentencing precedent may exist. The inflexibility inherent in these laws, lacking differentiation based on the severity of the offense, results in non-violent individuals receiving unduly harsh sentences. The case of Smith v State [2022], where Deonte Lovell Smith was convicted for Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion, sheds light on how mandatory minimum sentencing contributes to the rapid overpopulation in prisons. Judges are compelled by mandatory minimum sentencing laws to impose significant sentences for defendants convicted of their first felony offenses (Craigie & Zapryanova, 2021). As such, non-violent offenders may face prolonged incarceration periods that do not necessarily align with the gravity of their offenses. This underscores the need for a more nuanced sentencing approach that considers the varying degrees of culpability, ultimately aiming to rectify the adverse impact of mandatory minimums on non-violent individuals within the criminal justice system. Notably, amidst calls for reform, the imperative for a balanced criminal justice system has led to the exploration of alternatives to mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Luna (2017) argues that, “mandatory minimums could be converted into presumptive sentences, where judges have the authority to issue a lower sentence so long as they provide good reasons as to why the presumption should not apply in a given case.” (p. 144). Judges argue that the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences on offenders of specific crimes, compels them to impose longer sentences than defendants deserve, severely limiting alternatives to incarceration (Nir & Liu 2022). Arguably, this heavily stifles the capability of judges in considering crucial case factors, the circumstances of defendants, and societal issues required to impose just and humane sentences. More importantly, it is crucial to advocate for the implementation of judicial discretion within predefined boundaries and the adoption of evidence-based sentencing practices. This will be a foundational point toward acknowledging the complexities of individual cases, while aiming to strike a delicate balance between uniformity and tailored justice. Craigie and Zapryanova (2021) point out that the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act eliminated all mandatory minimum sentences and expanded discretion over drug treatment and rehabilitation as an alternative to incarceration (p. 19-20). The case of Doe v. United States [2023] showcase a practical application of these reformative approaches, where the Court held that Doe faced extraordinary circumstances and acted with reasonable diligence. By employing risk assessment tools, judges are equipped with comprehensive information to guide them in determining sentences that align with the unique circumstances of each case (Anderson & Dummar, 2020). This evolving landscape in criminal justice reflects a growing recognition that a more nuanced and individualized approach can foster fairness, efficacy, and equity within the legal system. Furthermore, the critiques surrounding mandatory minimum sentencing laws underscore significant concerns related to fairness, racial disparities, and their impact on non-violent offenders. Careful analysis of recent studies, case laws, and scholarly discussions conveys a nuanced understanding of the challenges being imposed by mandatory minimum sentencing laws (Anderson & Dummar, 2020; Craigie & Zapryan...