(How Much) Do Mandatory Minimums Matter?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Holmes Didwania
Keyword(s):  
Mandatory Minimums

Good Data, Good Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 262-264
Author(s):  
John Tilley ◽  
Serena Chang ◽  
Richard J. Peay
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Racial Disparity ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Mandatory Minimums ◽  
Visualization Tools ◽  
Data Driven Decisions

Real-time data is crucial in delivering actionable information, yet sparse in the criminal justice space. Often, practitioners and policy makers (“System Actors”), are forced to rely on information that is missing, incorrect, and/or outdated. Recidiviz, a nonpartisan tech non-profit, enables System Actors to make data-driven decisions as part of their regular workflows. This article describes Recidiviz’s work modeling the projected influence of eliminating mandatory minimums in Virginia, including state costs avoided, impact on the prison population, and number of life-years individuals would regain by avoiding incarceration. Recidiviz calculated that if Virginia eliminated mandatory minimums for drug sales offenses only, over the next five years, it could avoid a cumulative $11.6 million in incarceration costs, give 360 years of life back to people, and decrease the prison population’s racial disparity. If Virginia eliminated all mandatory minimums, as SB 5046 proposes, it could help the Commonwealth avoid $80.2 million in costs and give back 2,496 years of life over five years. In addition to policy impact modeling, Recidiviz’s core work is in partnering with state corrections and supervision departments to provide real-time feedback and data visualization tools.

Prosecutor Mercy

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-366
Author(s):  
Lee Kovarsky
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Love Affair ◽  
Half Century ◽  
Criminal Justice Reform ◽  
Mandatory Minimums ◽  
American Prison

The tailwinds might be behind criminal justice reform, but American mercy power remains locked in a sputtering clemency model. Centralized leadership should be braver or the centralized institutions should be streamlined, the arguments go—but what if the more basic mercy problem is centralization itself? In this essay, I explore that question. In so doing, I defend the normative premise that post-conviction mercy is justified, and I address the questions of institutional design and political economy that follow. I ultimately encourage jurisdictions to layer decentralized mercy powers on top of their clemency mechanisms, and for the newer authority to be vested in local prosecutors. I present less a single proposal than a collection of principles for mercy decentralization. Governors and presidents simply cannot deliver the punishment remissions appropriate for an American prison population bloated by a half-century love affair with over-criminalization, mandatory minimums, and recidivism enhancements.

Circumventing the Penalty for Offenders Facing Mandatory Minimums

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario V. Cano ◽  
Cassia Spohn
Keyword(s):  
Mandatory Minimums

Sentencing Policy

Criminology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andres F. Rengifo
Keyword(s):  
Partisan Politics ◽  
Drug Laws ◽  
Race And Gender ◽  
Institutional Processes ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Political Ideologies ◽  
Legal Sanctions ◽  
Mandatory Minimums ◽  
Sentencing Policy ◽  
And Gender

Sentencing policies govern the administration of legal sanctions for individuals convicted of a criminal offense. As such, these policies shape a vast array of institutional processes ranging from the likelihood, nature, and duration of imprisonment, to release decisions and the conditions of post-incarceration supervision. Starting in the mid 1970s the US approach to sentencing moved away from a relatively uniform set of indeterminate state systems focused on individualized, case-specific decisions to a more fragmented set of determinate systems emphasizing structured decision making and reduced discretion for legal actors. This change also implies a greater emphasis on retributive ideologies in contrast to more traditional rehabilitation-centered approaches. This framework has been progressively developed through a number of state and federal sentencing policies—including, for example, repeat-offender statuses, sentencing enhancements and mandatory minimums, truth-in-sentencing statuses, and drug laws. In most cases these initiatives have been implemented through legislative action, although in recent years other government entities (such as sentencing commissions) have had more influence in the development of these policies. A rich tradition of socio-legal studies has explored the linkages between sentencing and the role, justification, and functions of legal punishments in society. Research has also highlighted a number of social covariates of sentencing policies—such as more conservative political ideologies and more intense partisan politics, as well as greater levels of economic resources—that have been linked to more punitive approaches and higher incarceration rates. Studies have also explored case- and jurisdiction-level disparities in sentencing outcomes and processes related to attributes of defendants (notably race and gender). An emerging body of works has begun to document the specific impact of sentencing policies on offenders and on the criminal justice system as a whole. These works are particularly relevant to understanding the context and impact of mass incarceration for prisoners, communities, and government agencies.

A Perspective on the Proposed Amendments to the Drug Distribution Guideline

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 252-257
Author(s):  
Kevin Bennardo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drug Trafficking ◽  
Drug Distribution ◽  
Drug Offenders ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Federal Sentencing ◽  
Mandatory Minimums ◽  
Level Reduction ◽  
The U.S

This Commentary provides a perspective on the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s proposed amendment to the drug distribution guideline. The proposed amendment has the potential to substantially affect federal sentencing and incarceration because of the sheer volume of advisory sentencing ranges that are calculated through the drug distribution guideline. Although the proposed almost-across-the-board offense level reduction is laudable, the Commission should go further in its amendment of the drug distribution guideline. First, the proposed amendment reduces most of the offense levels in the Drug Quantity Table by two levels, but it does not alter the offense levels for distributions of the smallest and largest drug quantities. The amendment would be more internally consistent if the Commission simply reduced the offense levels applicable to the entire Drug Quantity Table by two levels. Second, the amendment continues to base the offense levels in the Drug Quantity Table on the mandatory minimums in the drug trafficking statute. The Commission should delink the Drug Quantity Table from the mandatory minimums. An increasing number of drug defendants escape the operation of otherwise-applicable mandatory minimum sentences, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States and the Attorney General’s directive to federal prosecutors to structure indictments to avoid mandatory minimums for certain low-level, non-violent drug offenders. Fairness dictates that these offenders receive a advisory sentencing range that reflects the Commission’s research and expertise rather than one that is bound to inapplicable statutory mandatory minimums.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document