Mandatory minimum sentences require judges to impose fixed prison terms for certain crimes regardless of circumstances. They emerged in the 1980s along with the war on drugs, “tough on crime” politics and concerns about sentencing inconsistencies, dramatically curtailing the discretion of state and federal judges in relevant cases. From the beginning, these sentencing strictures have raised questions about the nature of justice and the quality of mercy. The opposing arguments reflect competing visions of fairness: equal treatment through standardization versus the wisdom of judges weighing each case in context. Which should our legal system prioritize?
Justice is served
Mandatory minimums define the stakes of committing certain crimes, then punish accordingly, leaving no room for sentimentality or bias. They embody fairness as our legal system defines it: equal justice under the law, for everyone, regardless of race or class, gender or immigration status. By establishing a floor for punishment, mandatory minimums standardize what could otherwise be head-spinning variance from one jurisdiction to another. They ensure that certain crimes will be punished according to the will of the people, rather than the personal whims of different judges.
Mandatory minimums also help to deter would-be criminals. Research shows that certainty of punishment is more important to deterrence than severity, although the latter can also help by extending the time in confinement where it is impossible for inmates to reoffend. No wonder the proliferation of mandatory minimums has coincided with plummeting crime nationwide. “As determinate sentencing and existing mandatory minimums have taken hold over the last generation,” says Georgetown Law adjunct professor Bill Otis, “crime is down by 50%. Not only is the system of determinate sentencing not broken, it is very likely the most successful domestic initiative of the last half-century.”
By primarily targeting serious criminals and repeat offenders — the federal system exempts certain low-level defendants — mandatory minimums give prosecutors the leverage they need to achieve justice quickly and consistently by negotiating plea bargains from a position of strength. Avoiding expensive trials keeps costs down. That same leverage can be used to persuade defendants to disclose information that can be used to dismantle criminal organizations, especially useful in drug cases. They are a valuable tool in our shared pursuit of public safety.
Less frequently discussed, mandatory minimums are also more democratic. They’re determined by legislators, who are directly elected to embody the will of the people. Meanwhile, reforms that would eliminate these standards threaten to reverse downturns in violent crime. “It will give more power to ideologically driven judges for whom no criminal is without an excuse,” adds Otis, “and it will pave the way for the creeping return of irrational disparity in sentencing.”
One size fails all
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.
It may seem counterintuitive, but mandatory minimums disproportionately impact minority populations. 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 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.
Finally, mandatory minimums sow distrust in the courts. Many judges who are required to impose mandatory minimum sentences don’t agree with them — and say so. If the judge sees an outcome as unfair, why should anyone else trust the system? No wonder one 2024 poll shows that 70% of American voters now favor the elimination of mandatory minimums — including 60% of Republicans.
This story appears in the January/February 2026 issue of Deseret Magazine. Learn more about how to subscribe.