NCJ Number
153699
Date Published
1993
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This paper reviews issues that policymakers need to consider as they evaluate the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences, which have been proposed to ensure that persons convicted of a crime would be suitably and appropriately punished and to deter potential offenders from committing crime.
Abstract
Reasons cited in favor of minimum sentences include their impact on crime through deterrence and incapacitation of the serious offender, and their impact on sentencing disparity, plea bargaining, and respect for the law. Critics of minimum mandatory sentence argue that serious offenders are incapacitated without minimum sentences, that deterrence is not achieved, and that prison overcrowding forces corrections authorities to parole more dangerous offenders who have not received mandatory minimum sentences. In terms of their impact on sentencing disparity and plea bargaining, opponents maintain that elimination of judicial discretion results in unjust sentences, that mandatory minimums are applied disproportionately to minorities, and that mandatory minimums are costly and do not necessarily induce guilty pleas. The available research indicates that mandatory minimum sentences have resulted in an increased proportion of nonviolent drug offenders in prison and a decrease in incarcerated violent offenders, and in a greater use of court resources in responding to low-level drug offenders at the expense of higher level offenders. 34 notes and 23 references