NCJ Number
145275
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 57 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1993) Pages: 9-19
Date Published
1993
Length
9 pages
Annotation
The simultaneous existence of the Federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences poses a major danger both to sentencing reform and to society.
Abstract
These two approaches are opposites, although they share the goal of achieving determinate sentencing by reducing judicial sentencing discretion and the arbitrary and unpredictable sentencing disparities that have accompanied it. Mandatory sentences have a long history, but recent laws on mandatory minimums are often bizarre and anomalous. More than 60 laws contain mandatory minimum penalties, but only the four covering drug law offenses and weapons offenses are used with any frequency, accounting for 94 percent of all Federal mandatory minimum cases. Current problems include uneven prosecutorial application of the laws, arbitrary State/Federal case allocation, the reduction of judges to automatons, unwarranted sentencing uniformity, racial disparities, overloaded courts and prisons, and no reduction in crime. Thus, mandatory minimum sentences are counterproductive. They serve no purpose that is not served equally well or better by sentencing guidelines. Thus, the proposed Sentencing Uniformity Act, which would repeal all mandatory minimums and give the sentencing guidelines a chance to work, offers promise for achieving the basic goals of sentencing reform. 116 references