A return to failed and racist ‘tough on crime’ policies

Mandatory minimums effectively shift the power of sentencing from judges to prosecutors, resulting in less objective and more politicized outcomes. Although they are largely used for drug and other nonviolent crimes, mandatory minimum sentences can apply to a wide range of offenses. When mandatory minimums are in effect, the ultimate sentence will be based on the specific offense charged. This means that prosecutors have enormous, unchecked power because by choosing which charges to bring, they are also selecting the sentence the person will receive if convicted. This results in an imbalance of power and a high risk of unfair outcomes. For example, regardless of guilt, the threat of specific charges that carry stiff mandatory minimums may encourage people to plead guilty to a different crime with lower penalties. Furthermore, the exploitation of mandatory minimums effectively prevents judges from considering the totality of the circumstances when determining an appropriate sentence after a person has been found guilty of a crime. Historically, one of the roles of judges was to adjudicate an appropriate punishment. Usurping the judges’ role is especially problematic considering 98% of federal convictions are the result of guilty pleas over which prosecutors completely control the terms; very few people resolve their case with a trial.

No. Mandatory minimum sentences disproportionately harm Black and Brown people.

Federal prosecutors are twice as likely to charge a Black person with an offense that carries a mandatory minimum sentence as compared to a similarly situated white person. As a result, even when controlling for arrest offenses, criminal history, and other factors, Black men receive sentences that are, on average, 13% longer than those for white men. Mandatory minimums have largely driven the racial disparities present in the federal system in recent years. Drug offenses are the most commonly charged federal offenses that carry mandatory minimum sentences, and Black and Brown people are the most likely to be sentenced to these. This is largely the result of law enforcement selectively targeting Black and Brown people for stops, searches and arrests. This is especially pronounced for drug offenses, where Black people are far more likely to be arrested for possession, despite similar usage rates as white people. Racial discrimination in policing and charging decisions has directly resulted in Black and Brown people being more likely to be charged, subjected to mandatory minimums and consequently overrepresented in federal prisons.

No. Imposing the death penalty and long mandatory minimum sentences do not deter crime; instead, they harm public safety. Evidence shows that the death penalty does not deter violent crime. States that utilize the death penalty have higher homicide rates than those that do not. A robust study of states with and without capital punishment demonstrates that when states eliminated capital punishment, murder rates did not increase. In fact, in several states, murder rates dropped after the elimination of the death penalty. This may be due to the “brutalization effect” — executions demonstrate that killing is an appropriate way to avenge grievances, setting an example for individuals to follow. Unsurprisingly, a poll of 500 randomly selected police chiefs ranked the death penalty as the least effective tool for reducing violent crime.

Similar to the death penalty, a primary rationale behind mandatory minimum sentences was to deter crime. Today, the average federal sentence for people convicted of a mandatory minimum offense is 151 months; when the mandatory minimum is for drug offenses, it is 138 months.  Contrary to the notion that these sentences will have a deterrent effect, ample research demonstrates that mandatory minimums do not decrease crime and, in fact, they likely generate more crime. Ample research concludes that imprisoning people not only does not lessen the likelihood that people will reoffend, but it can actually increase it. This may be for a multitude of reasons: Prisons are a place of trauma, people released from prison face stigma and economic hurdles, and people may struggle to return to families and communities after being away for so long. A policy of seeking harsh sentences will not improve public safety, but it will certainly destroy communities.

The SPLC will use every tool at its disposal to fight against these unequal, harsh and unjust sentencing laws that disproportionately impact Black and Brown people, including urging Congress to put an end to draconian and discriminatory sentencing laws by repealing mandatory minimum sentences and passing the EQUAL Act. Together we fight for justice!