 Print
The U.S. Sentencing Commission has released a thorough analysis of the application and effects of mandatory minimum sentences. It is the first systematic review of mandatory minimum sentences in 20 years. During those two decades the number of mandatory minimum sentences has grown exponentially, and with that growth the number of inmates serving mandatory sentences has ballooned, filling our prisons to bursting.
 Judge Patti B. Saris, the chair of the commission noted, “The number of federal prisoners has tripled in the last 20 years. Although the commission recognizes that mandatory minimum penalties are only one of the factors that have contributed to the increased capacity and cost of inmates in federal custody (an increase in immigration cases is another), the commission recommends that Congress request prison impact analyses from the commission as early as possible in the legislative process when Congress considers enacting or amending federal criminal penalties.”
Because criminal cases get priority on court calendars, mandatory sentence cases have caused a backlog of civil trials – delaying some civil cases for years.
Some of the most interesting findings of the report:
- In fiscal year 2010, two of every three offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty were drug offenders. Almost half of all drug offenders (48.7%) who were convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty were convicted of an offense carrying a 10-year penalty.
- Hispanic offenders accounted for the largest group (38.3%) of offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty, followed by black offenders (31.5%), white offenders (27.4%) and other race offenders (2.7%).
- Offenders subject to a mandatory minimum penalty at sentencing received an average sentence of 139 months, compared to an average sentence of 63 months for those offenders who received relief from a mandatory minimum penalty.
- The type of drug involved in drug cases significantly impacts the application of mandatory minimum penalties. In fiscal year 2010, the highest rate of conviction of such penalties was in methamphetamine cases (83.2%) while the lowest rate for the major drug types was in marijuana cases (44.3%).
- The majority of offenders in nearly every function, including low-level secondary and miscellaneous functions, were convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty, although higher level functions tended to be convicted of such statutes at higher rates.
- The Commission’s analysis found that, for every function, the quantity of drugs involved in the offense resulted in a base offense level that included or exceeded the five-year mandatory minimum penalty.
- Furthermore, the Commission’s analysis revealed that the quantity of drugs involved in an offense was not closely related to the offender’s function in the offense.
- In fiscal year 2010, drug offenders convicted of a statute carrying a mandatory minimum penalty went to trial more than twice (4.5%) as often as drug offenders who were not convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty (1.6%). Furthermore, on average, the longer the mandatory minimum penalty an offender was facing, the less likely the offender was to plead guilty.
One finding in particular is disturbing. Mandatory minimums are justified on the basis that they will help get “the big fish.” The commission’s analysis of a 15 percent sample of fiscal year 2009 cases indicates that the mandatory minimum penalties sweep up a lot of minnows, rather than the big fish. Among all drug cases, couriers accounted for 23 percent of the prosecutions with street-level dealers another 17.2 percent, meaning that very small players accounted for over 40 percent of the cases. Going after these small fish was not what Congress intended when it passed mandatory minimum sentences.
The commission concluded that for a mandatory minimum to be just it must meet these criteria:
- it should not be excessively severe,
- it must be narrowly tailored to apply only to those offenders who warrant such punishment, and
- it must be applied consistently.
These standards make eminent sense.
Justice Fellowship has long opposed mandatory minimum sentences because they do not allow the court to consider each case with its unique set of facts. By imposing a “one size fits all” standard on the courts, these sentences often impose sentences where the harm done to the offender and his family is far greater than the harm caused by their criminal act. That is not justice, and it is unbiblical. For more on this topic see my earlier Justice eReport, “Mandatory Minimums: Unjust and Unbiblical.”
The Commission’s report will provide valuable data as Congress and state legislatures consider eliminating or modifying mandatory minimum sentences or establishing new ones. The report will provide information to establish sentences that reflect the severity of the harm done by the crime, rather than on the level of public anger at the “crime of the moment.”
In His service,
Pat Nolan
Vice-President, Prison Fellowship
Resources
|
