Mandatory Minimums

Supreme Court gives judges more leeway in sentencing

Mandatory minimum sentencing has its supporters and more than a few critics. Supporters say the certainty of tough sentences on conviction serves as a deterrent to crime.

Critics dispute that, saying long, mandatory minimums negatively impact the possibility of rehabilitation. They believe judges should have discretion to determine what sentence best fits the crime and circumstances. They also say mandatory minimums are the main driver of prison overcrowding and cost millions of tax dollars annually.

While states vary in their use of mandatory minimums, it’s doubtful they are going away anytime soon on the federal level. But the U.S. Supreme Court just gave judges a bit more discretion.

Back in 2013, Levon Dean Jr. was convicted of federal robbery and a firearms violations in Iowa. The judge gave him the mandatory sentence on both charges—30 years for the firearms violation and 3 years for the robbery. The court ruled these sentences were required by federal law.

Dean’s attorneys appealed, saying the firearms sentence was long enough to cover both.

The government maintained the judge should follow the minimum mandated for each count.

On Monday the nation’s highest court ruled unanimously for Dean, saying judges not only can consider how other punishments in a case affect sentences, but that the federal government already engages in the practice through plea negotiations where sentences are presented as a package deal.

“The government’s interpretation is at odds not only with the text of those provisions but also with the government’s own practice,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Roberts wrote that punishment was not the only consideration in justice, but that courts should “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the four identified purposes of sentencing: just punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation.”

We agree with the court. In our view mandatory minimums have their place, but justice is not “one size fits all.” Judges are on the bench for a reason. They are not merely referees between the defense and prosecution. We also depend on their experience and wisdom to determine how justice can best be served. And that includes some discretion in sentencing.