About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

94 Judicature 6 (2010-2011)
The Impact of Mandatory Minimum Penalties in Federal Sentencing

handle is hein.journals/judica94 and id is 6 raw text is: Viewpoint The impact of mandatory minimu penalties in federal sentencing Mandatory minimum penalties have not imp public safety but have exacerbated existing rc disparities within the criminal justice system. The U. S. Sentencing Commis- sion's examination of the effects of mandatory sentencing is very timely and will be of great benefit to both policymakers and practitioners. While the Commission's 1991 report on these issues was quite valuable, much has changed in the interim and there is now more than two decades of experience with these penalties. In addition, congressional action regarding cocaine sentencing issues and Senator Webb's proposed commission to study the criminal jus- tice system indicate that sentencing issues are now in a period of reexam- ination, and so the field will benefit from a comprehensive assessment of current policies. There are a variety of issues to be addressed in examining mandatory sentencing, but I will focus on two in particular. First, what effect have fed- eral mandatory minimum penalties had on public safety? And second, to what extent have these penalties exacerbated existing racial disparities within the criminal justice system? Public safety Mandatory minimum penalties have been enacted over time for a variety of reasons. Foremost among these are legislators' professed belief that such penalties will bring greater cer- tainty to the sentencin that they will send a potential offenders t behaviors will be met v certain punishment. Looking at the exp past several decades, s have contended that m imums, including such ties, have produce benefits in reducing cr congressional hearing, former U.S. Attorney M van asked, Has the r gress played in sentenc the passage of mandat sentences, had an imF safety and crime? He c The answer to that qu ily be found in crime s buttressed by anecdoi story from across our rates over the past 30 paint a picture of cont of reducing crime anc through sound publicj What, then, do we ki extent to which fedel penalties have been r( declines in crime? To virtually no data that demonstrating a direci federal mandatory pe ticular and any decli Further, a broad rang by MARC MAUER m suggests that it is quite unlikely that these penalties would have such an impact. roved In examining the effect of federal cag mandatory penalties, the key data aproblem is that the federal court sys- tem handles only a small fraction, less than 10 percent, of all criminal cases. Therefore, attempting to draw any conclusions about the specific impact ag process and of fderal mandatory penalties on crime imessage to rates is fraught with imprecision. To fdhat specified state that the adoption of such penal- iith harsh and ties by Congress in the 1980s was directly responsible for reductions in Erience of the a wide variety of crimes that are gen- ome observers erally prosecuted in state courts andatory min- requires a great leap of faith that is federal penal- not supported by the evidence. d significant We can see this must cledriy in the ime. At a 2009 realm of drug offenses, the category for example, in which federal mandatory penal- IichaelJ. Sulli- ties most often apply. Since drug ole that Con- offenses are widely prosecuted in ing, including both state and federal courts, a ory minimum potential offender has no means of )act on public knowing in which court system he or oncluded that she would be likely to be prosecuted estion can eas- (assuming, of course, that the tatistics and is offender is even thinking about the tal story after prospects of apprehension). There- nation. Crime fore, it is virtually impossible to years certainly bekotayuiulfdrlipc inning success o adtr etnig Ivictimization Evnaiefo thspblm policy.' mauigteipc fhrhsn now about the tnigplce nciertsi -almanatoy cmplexor unertalting. he itey dte esponsible for date, there is is capable of t link between nalties in par- nes in crime. re of research This article is adapted from testimony before the United States Sentencing Commission on May 27, 2010. 1. Statement of Michael J. Sullivan before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Home- land Security, House Committee on the judiciary, July 14, 2009. 6 JUDICATURE Volume 94, Number 1 July-August 2010

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most