A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision could afford judges greater freedom when deciding prison sentences.
The unanimous decision, delivered April 3, said courts may consider whether a defendant has already been given a mandatory minimum sentence for one crime when determining an appropriate sentence for another charge.
The ruling would apply to cases where the defendant faces a charge with a mandatory minimum sentence, as well as additional charges.
“The question was, when you have a consecutive sentence — where you have one after the other, and the first one is a very large mandatory minimum — can the courts shorten the second one taking into account the very, very long mandatory minimum?” said Elliot Engstrom, a lawyer and fellow at Elon Law School.
Theoretically, mandatory minimums are used as a disincentive to commit certain crimes by punishing those who commit them more harshly, Engstrom said. But he said the downside of this concept is that the punishment might not always fit the crime.
“Traditionally, courts have a lot of flexibility when imposing sentences because courts are there — their boots are on the ground and they know the specific facts of the case,” he said. “Because they know the particular facts of the case, they can put together the most just sentence. Mandatory minimums are an attempt to take some of that flexibility away.”
Blake Dodge, a junior at UNC and former legal researcher and communications assistant for Families Against Mandatory Minimums in Washington, said the court's decision affirms the importance of judicial discretion.
“A judge should be able to judge, and so, in that sense, you can think of judicial discretion and mandatory minimums as antithetical because mandatory minimums prescribe a sentence based on the black-and-white circumstances of a crime,” she said.
Mandatory minimums can reinforce harmful perceptions about criminals and criminal justice while not taking into account individual circumstances, UNC senior Ana Dougherty said.