Examining the Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Justice or Injustice?

Abstract

Mandatory minimum sentences have sparked significant debate regarding their role in the criminal justice system. Advocates argue that these laws promote consistency and deterrence, ensuring that offenders face appropriate consequences for serious crimes. However, critics contend that mandatory minimums contribute to systemic injustices, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities and leading to overcrowded prisons without effectively reducing crime rates. This paper explores the origins and evolution of mandatory minimum sentencing, analyzing their intended objectives versus real-world outcomes. Through a review of empirical studies and case law, we assess the impact of these laws on recidivism rates, racial disparities, and the overall efficacy of the justice system. Furthermore, we discuss alternative sentencing models that emphasize rehabilitation and restorative justice, aiming to balance public safety with fairness. By scrutinizing the evidence and presenting diverse perspectives, this study aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on criminal justice reform, ultimately advocating for policies that foster a more equitable system. The findings underscore the need for careful consideration of sentencing practices to achieve justice without perpetuating cycles of inequality.

Keywords: mandatory minimums, criminal justice, sentencing, justice system, rehabilitation, racial disparities, public safety, reform