Most research indicates mandatory minimum sentences are ineffective at reducing crime, instead perpetuating the long-standing problem of mass incarceration in the United States. It’s long past time to eliminate this discounted relic of the “tough on crime” era of policing and justice.
Mandatory minimum sentences in the U.S. gained prominence during the “War on Drugs,” particularly with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, driven by beliefs that strict penalties would deter drug crimes and incapacitate offenders, stemming from earlier efforts like the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 that also introduced them. While mandatory sentences have historical roots, the modern era escalated in the 1980s and 90s with harsher drug laws and “three strikes” policies, aiming for consistent, tough-on-crime justice by removing judicial discretion for certain offenses.
However, most research indicates mandatory minimum sentences are not effective at reducing crime, instead causing significant harm by increasing incarceration, straining budgets, exacerbating racial disparities, and hindering judicial discretion without demonstrably improving public safety or deterring crime. Evidence suggests they lead to unjust outcomes, contribute to mass incarceration, and divert resources from more effective public safety solutions, with many experts and officials now advocating for their reform or elimination entirely.
Mandatory minimums remove human judgment and replace it with flat, bureaucratic rules. Judges exist to judge, and their sentencing decisions, which come after guilt has been determined by jury or a change of plea, have perhaps the most gravity. Informed by the available facts, victim-impact statements and mitigating factors, they’re uniquely positioned to weigh the circumstances of each defendant. Mandatory minimums strip away this great power and responsibility, replacing it with something less than just.
Researchers at the University of Michigan have shown that prosecutors are more likely to bring charges that carry mandatory minimums against Black offenders. Another study found that prosecutors were more likely to charge Black and Latino defendants with such crimes, more so in states that separately rated higher in metrics of racism and discrimination. “African Americans are 13% of the nation’s population but 37% of the prison population, and 1 in 3 African American men spends time incarcerated,” writes conservative Washington Post columnist George Will. “All this takes a staggering toll on shattered families and disordered neighborhoods.”
In practice, mandatory minimums have upset the constitutional balance. At least one federal judge has compared them to a “sledgehammer” that prosecutors can use to pressure defendants into waiving their constitutional right to a trial by jury. “Mandatory minimum sentencing laws can expose defendants to draconian prison terms if convicted at trial,” Mike Fox wrote for the libertarian Cato Institute concerning the Hewitt v. United States US Supreme Court decision earlier this year. “This stark disparity, known as the ‘trial penalty,’ creates a coercive environment in which even those who insist on their innocence may feel compelled to plead guilty.” Further, when less cases go to trial, that removes a check that once encouraged governmental restraint.
Removing mandatory minimum sentences aims to give judges more discretion, address mass incarceration, reduce racial disparities, and lower prison costs by allowing tailored sentences based on individual circumstances rather than rigid, automatic prison terms. Overall, the approach offers significant societal and systemic benefits by shifting focus from automatic punishment to individualized justice. Incarceration is expensive; reducing prison populations saves millions in taxpayer dollars. These funds can be reallocated to community safety programs, mental health services, and substance use treatment, which are often more effective at reducing crime.
Shorter, flexible sentences allow for a shift toward public health and rehabilitative models, especially for substance-related offenses, addressing root causes rather than just punishing symptoms.
To learn more, read “How Mandatory Minimums Perpetuate Mass Incarceration and What to Do About It” at the Sentencing Project website.
