Like almost everything the government does that's stupid on its face, mandatory minimums were a reaction to a different problem. Voters were angry because there were wide disparities in sentencing, and it seemed some judges were wont to give out light sentences no matter how heinous the crime. It's probably not unreasonable to say "If you kill someone, you should serve at least this amount of time regardless of circumstances."
It's also not unreasonable to think large disparities in sentencing are fundamentally unfair. The amount of jail time you get is supposed to depend on what you did and not which judge presided over your sentencing.
But along the way mandatory minimums became a way for politicians to project the "tough on crime" image. You'd have a news article about a guy who just got out of jail killing an eight year old in a botched drug deal, then the next day Senator Simpleton is there at a press conference announcing a new bill to add 25 years to everybody caught with a gun at a drug deal.
It's virtually impossible for any politician to stand up at that time and say "That seems like an awfully long sentence for being in possession of a firearm."
I'm in the state of Victoria in Australia. While we don't have the truly ludicrous sentencing that the US does, we have our own share of tabloid-driven "lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" vocal idiots who don't think of the whole picture. Every sentence is met in the public eye with "that's too short!"
Anyway, the law institute of Victoria did a study where they asked members of the public what an appropriate sentence would be for real cases (without telling them the actual sentence). The kicker was this: the survey included much more detail on how the crime occurred. It wasn't just a throwaway line in a paper, but gave context. Turned out that the respondents suggested sentences that were actually shorter than were given in court.
The whole "tough on crime, because votes" is a hideous thing, because most voters don't think about the big picture.
Yes, correct, but that's not what the populace wanted at the time. Despite the fact that weakening that by definition is weakening the justice systems ability to mete out real, actual justice.
Not really, your punishment should fit the crime and therefore be related exactly to what you did (and the circumstances in which you did it) - and definitely not based on which member of the judiciary you are randomly assigned.
So yes, whilst judges are supposed to have lots of discretion- there should also be oversight to ensure they're somewhat aligned with each other.
Mandatory minimums are a populist solution to headlines about setencing.
"People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine." -Ruth Bader Ginsgurg
Yup, that discussion is now raging (at least in academia, and a bit in politics) in the Netherlands, particularly in and around 2012 when there was a new law proposal for mandatory minimums. Judges all around the country were strongly opposed, despite them appreciating the issue of different judgements for different people.
The law however is a lot more sensible. For one it's for repeat crimes, but only of a certain order of the first one. i.e. if the first crime carried a 10 year sentence, then a repeat crime would carry a mandatory minimum of at least half the full sentence on that crime. You wouldn't have the issue of three strikes out for example, because none of those crimes are large enough to fit the mandatory threshold. (Further, while marijuana is illegal in the Netherlands, normal use is never prosecuted anyway, which we call the 'gedoogbeleid', loosely 'tolerance policy'. i.e. it's technically illegal, but it's country-wide policy to ignore it. Like if a police officer catches you walking through a red light on a street that has no traffic for hours because of an accident further down the road.) Still I'm not a fan. Judges are imperfect but I feel they're less imperfect than mandatory minimums. At the end of the day, our judges are independent and highly trained. Further there are various instruments to ensure independence, like appeals or even rejecting the judge and replacing him or her with a different one. (right of substitution).
It's also not unreasonable to think large disparities in sentencing are fundamentally unfair. The amount of jail time you get is supposed to depend on what you did and not which judge presided over your sentencing.
But along the way mandatory minimums became a way for politicians to project the "tough on crime" image. You'd have a news article about a guy who just got out of jail killing an eight year old in a botched drug deal, then the next day Senator Simpleton is there at a press conference announcing a new bill to add 25 years to everybody caught with a gun at a drug deal.
It's virtually impossible for any politician to stand up at that time and say "That seems like an awfully long sentence for being in possession of a firearm."