Are mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional?

[porphyrian]

One of the more unfortunate products of the "war on drugs" and "tough on crime" era is a preponderance of mandatory minimum sentences written into legislation, forcing a judge to sentence anyone declared guilty as the law dictates. Is this appropriate? Wouldn't that be a case of legislators usurping the power of the judicial branch, and thus unconstitutional? Or do they make us a safer society? Let's see what you guys think.

Are mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional?

[Idioteque]

1. I don't think they are unconstitutional. They are ridiculous and unfair, however. nt

[porphyrian]

7. So, you don't think the legislative branch is overstepping its bounds...

...in making them? What if it went the other way, and judges told legislators what sentence they had to write into a bill?

[bowens43]

17. Where in the Constitution does it say

that only judges have the authority to determine sentencing?

Judges tell the legislators what they can and cannot include in legislation all the time.


I agree with you by the way, I just can't come up with a sound argument against them.

[porphyrian]

20. Doesn't the Constitution define the branches of government?

I'm really not sure now, but I thought it did.

[Swamp Rat]

2. Evil n/t

[porphyrian]

8. Certainly in practice. - n/t

[Deep13]

3. Legislators define the law including the penalties.

They are not unconstitutional.

[SteppingRazor]

9. Mandatory minimums have only existed in American law for 30 years...

this is not how the framers designed the judicial and legislative branches.

Not to mention the massive overcrowding of prisons, and the fact that no two crimes are alike -- which is why sentencing has been at judicial discretion for more than 400 years.

[Deep13]

14. Doesn't make it unconstitutional.

At common law all felonies were punishable by death. Misdemeanors were punishable by fine, corporal punishment, imprisonment or mutilation. I don't think the courts have had as free of a hand as you are suggesting.

[SteppingRazor]

23. Agreed...

but I do think it's a violation of the separation of powers.

I also think that sentencing someone to life in prison for a nonviolent crime is definitely a violation of the Eighth Amendment.


In the end, I'll grant you that neither of these arguments may hold a great deal of weight, and it simply comes down to the fact that mandatory minimums, while perhaps constitutional, are horrific miscarriages of justice -- the sort of thing that the United States should have no party in. But then, since we're apparantly pro-torture these days, who's to say? :shrug:

[Deep13]

26. "...violation of the separation of powers..."

That would make it unconstitutional. State and Fed. courts have routinely found that formulating penalties is within the purview of the legislative branch.

[porphyrian]

10. Well, they set a range of penalties.

Traditionally, it's up to judges to decide, on a case by case basis, what penalty is deserved. Don't you agree?

[Deep13]

16. Sure, but that range has a lower limit.

That would be the mandatory minimum. In Ohio we have mandatory minimums for major drug offenders, repeat violent offenders, gun specs. and certain sex offenses. Legislators were sick of courts who begin to see crime as routine after awhile undermining their legislative efforts. The "minimum" for rape of a child under the age of 10 is life without parole. At least with murder you can be paroled after 20 years (usually).

[porphyrian]

24. Well, you're making my case, then.

It was my understanding that it is up to the judge to determine the sentence in any particular case. Legislators just write the laws. So, when legislators try to do the judge's job in writing the law, aren't they overstepping their Constitutionally-defined power, regardless of whether or not you believe the person convicted deserves it?

[Deep13]

28. It is not the court's job to define penalties.

That belongs to the legislature. Isn't it better that way? Sentences are uniform and predictable without great variation from judge to judge, case to case. I don't want a court hammering a defendant because he doesn't like the way he looks or because they ran out of coffee that morning. I don't want a judge going easy on someone because his family showed up in court or because the defendant is a prominent person. Uniformity for similar offenses is the best way for substantial justice.

[porphyrian]

31. I'm not suggesting judges define penalties, but they should have the power...

...to decide what penalty is appropriate for a given case, right? Uniformity in sentencing does not at all equate to justice if the penalty isn't just.

[Deep13]

36. Right. Here there are ranges of penalties for specific offenses.

Some of those felonies are probationable. Some are not. The ones that are not effectively have the lower limit of the sentencing range as the mandatory minimum. If the jury finds certain aggravating factors: serious drug offender, repeat violent offender, gun used in the crime, then there are additional minimum sentences. For kiddie rape or rape by force, it's life. For agg. murder with specifications, the minimum is life. The max., for course is death. We don't get too many of those. For a low grade felony like theft of over $600, the penalty is 6 months to a year. Assuming probation is not an option (let's say the defendant violated probation in the past), the minimum is effectively 6 mo. For felonious assault resulting in serious physical harm, it is a bit more harsh. The minimum is two years up to eight. For a gun add three more. It is all very predictable and gives real guidance to the court so it is not just what this county politician feels like doing. (We have partisan judicial elections here.)

Anything that shifts the decision away from the politician judge to the jury is a good thing in my view. Likewise when it comes from shifting it from one person to the concensus of the legislature for a catagory of offenses.

[SteppingRazor]

4. While I believe they are flagrantly unconstitutional...

the SCOTUS disagrees, which pretty much makes them constitutional.

Personally, I think mandatory minimums are a massive miscarriage of justice. We've reached the point where someone who grows marijuana does far more time than a rapist. It's obscene.

[porphyrian]

11. Well, it make it moot, anyway.

I'm leaning towards thinking mandatory minimums are themselves criminal, if not unconstitutional.

[acmavm]

5. People are getting mandatory life sentences for non-violent

crimes, some not even drug related. If that doesn't violate the rights of an individual and the right of liberty guaranteed in the Constitution, I don't know what the hell does.

[bowens43]

12. the Constitution allows citizens to be deprived of liberty

but not without due process. Although I am certainly opposed to these minimum sentences, I still haven't seen a good Constitutional argument for stinking them down.

[porphyrian]

15. What about how it takes judgement out of the hands of the judge?

Isn't that overstepping one's Constitutionally-defined powers with regards to branch? Legislators are to write a range of penalties, more to define the maximum. Mandatory minimums tie the hands of judges, right?

[porphyrian]

13. I'm leaning that way. - n/t

[Deep13]

19. What non-violent crime gets a defendant life?

[SteppingRazor]

27. 1000s are serving life for nonviolent crimes

According to statistics from the California Department of Corrections, thousands of individuals are serving life sentences under California's three strikes law for nonviolent third strikes-in fact, 360 individuals in California are serving life sentences for shoplifting small amounts of merchandise. California is one of twenty-six states nationally with a three strikes law, but California's is the harshest in that the third strike need not be a serious or violent felony-any felony, even shoplifting, can be the basis for a life sentence.

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter04/shoplifting.html

On edit: I defy anyone to explain to me how shoplifting $150 worth of children's videos means a life sentence with no possiblity of parole for 50 years. I defy anyone to rationally explain how that is justice. Sickening, is a more accurate term than just. Horrific is a more accurate term than fair.

[Deep13]

29. I see. This state (OH) does not have a 3-strikes provision.

I agree that the life for habitual offenders is horrible from a policy point of view. One could argue that it punishes a person for the status of being a past offender and thereby being a bill of attainder. For those that do not know, a bill of attainder is a legislative pronouncement that a specific person is illegal and subject to being killed on sight. Traditionally, the English Parliament used it to rid itself of kings and other lofty persons who overstepped their authority. As far as I know, SCOTUS has declined to apply this reasoning to habitual felon laws.

[SteppingRazor]

34. OK. But I would argue that application of 3-strikes laws to such individuals...

is a flagrant violation of the Eighth Amendment. It is beyond cruel.

And yet, the SCOTUS approved of these cases. Greater legal minds than mine, I suppose. Obviously, they must be seeing someting here that I'm missing. Obviously, the common good must be served somehow by sending someone to jail for the rest of his life because he stole 3 golf clubs. Obviously, we have insured the social contract, protected our society, created some sort of social good out of this decision.Because our own Supreme Court wouldn't destroy a man's life and liberty itself over a few golf clubs ... would it?

[Deep13]

37. You may be right. No one asked my opinion before passing it.

I think people should be penalized for specific criminal acts, not for having some kind of criminal character. I think that flies in the face of the whole Common Law concept.

[acmavm]

33. Ask a 21-year old in Michigan (I think it is) who got life for

cocaine distribution. First offense. And the cop who conned him into just 'introducing' him to a guy who he could get cocaine from not only did cocaine with the guy, he got him hooked.

I'll try to find the case. It's disgusting.

But other that that, check out the prison population in California. A guy got life (habitual offender) for stealing a set of golf clubs. Third offense. His other two were theft-related as well.

Either you know this happens and don't care, or you haven't been paying attention. There has been many a story and article concerning just this issue.

[Deep13]

38. Yes, we discussed the 3-strikes thing elsewhere in this thread.

I've never agreed with habitual offender life sentences. I'm surprised anyone does. Somehow it seems unchristian to suppose someone is simply unredemeable. Can't comment on the details of the drug offense you describe since I do not know it.

[Shrek]

6. Does the constitution vest judges with the power to determine sentences?

I don't think it does, and if doesn't then it's not a usurpation of power.

[porphyrian]

18. Where are a judges powers defined then? - n/t

[Deep13]

22. No.

The Constitution does give a right to trial by jury. That is a limit on judicial discretion. Sentencing factors that amount to additional elements of the crime must be decided by jury. That was the holding in Apprendi v NJ, Washington v Blakely and US v Booker.

[LSdemocrat]

21. They're insanely stupid, but not unconstitutional

Legislatures write laws. Part of writing criminal statutes is defining sentences. Beyond the due process of trial, the legislature can set any punishment that is not cruel and unusual. Since jail, in and of itself, is not cruel or unusual in the constitutional sense, mandatory minumums are not unconstitutional. They're still mind numbingly dumb and unfair, but that is not enough to make it unconstitutional.

[porphyrian]

30. That makes sense, thanks. - n/t

[Odin2005]

25. They're not unconstitutional, but they are stupid.

[porphyrian]

32. I think we're all pretty much in agreement that they're stupid. - n/t

[On the Road]

35. I Understand that Congress Can Define Penalties

What troubles me that judges are forbidden from using their judgment to determine a fair penalty.

Traditionally, minimum sentences were a lower range for less serious offenses. With drug possession, even the minimum may represent a disproportionate punishment. I think a judge ought to be able to have some discretion on proportionality.

[Deep13]

39. Federal sentencing guidelines are now discretionary.

See US v Booker. I don't remember the cite.

What this all comes down to is that many of you don't think that drug offenses should be punished harshly or that they should not be crimes at all. Well, everyone can think whatever he or she wants and this argument has been had before.

[On the Road]

42. I Missed The Change to The Guidelines Now Being Discretionary

Was that change due to constitutional issues? Do you know what the arguments are?

It is probably true that most people are focusing on drug sentences. But I suspect it would be same for other crimes (say, patronizing a prostitute) that resulted in so many nonviolent offenders being given such long sentences. Drug laws have the distinction of being controversial and of having notoriously high minimum sentences, especially for crack cocaine.

[Deep13]

45. Based on right to trial by jury.

Mandatory serntencing factors caused the sentence to be higher than what was justified based on the facts in the indictment. The SCOTUS found this violated the right to trial by jury. As a remedy, they deleted the provision that made compliance with the guidelines mandatory.

The argument against harsh minimum sentences is sympathetic when you are talking about grass. No one has ever documented a death caused by marijuana. With crack, the agrument loses that sympathy. Crack is a horrible, deadly drug and those who deal in it should be hammered.

[On the Road]

52. Thank You. I Didn't Know That

[Nye Bevan]

40. Not one of the "yes" voters has explained what part of the constitution...

bans mandatory minimum sentences.

The constitution does ban cruel and unusual punishments, but mandatory minimum sentences do not necessarily fall into that category. Say there was a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence for first degree murder-- that would definitely not be cruel and unusual.

Mandatory minimum sentences are stupid, but make for an excellent, cynical 20-second soundbite wedge issue (cue scary-sounding music....... "Joe Q Liberal OPPOSES 5 year mandatory minimum sentences for pot smokers!") But this does not make them unconstitutional.

[porphyrian]

43. What about the separation of powers?

Aren't mandatory minimums a way for lawmakers to take judiciary power, or at least to limit the way in which judges can act in sentencing? Isn't that against the separation of powers?

[patcox2]

41. Why have a poll when there is a verifiable answer: No.

I mean, come on, expressing an opinion on a fact is philosophically a nullity.

They are constitutional, period. There is nothing in the constitution that requires indeterminate sentencing.

Its stupid, wrong, immoral, and unproductive. But its not unconstitutional, no matter what anyone thinks.

This is like taking a poll on whether the freezing point of water is 32 degrees F.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ck4829]

46. Certain mandatory minimum sentencing laws are in violation of the 14th Amendment

Crack cocaine in most states has a longer mandatory minimum than the powdered cocaine (If this form of it EVEN has a mandatory minimum attached to it).

Why is that? Take a long hard look at who snorts what. And everybody knows well who does what. Poor black people do crack and rich preppy white boys snort the powder.

I was introduced to the concept of mandatory minimum sentencing in High School.

My teacher, an African American, was the one who introduced it to me. And he said "Isn't it convenient that crack cocaine will get you in more trouble than the cocaine powder."

Convenient indeed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. No more than maximum sentences are, surely?

The only argument I've seen that they could be unconstitutional is that they violate separation of powers, but they clearly don't do this any more than a maximum sentence does.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. The result of this is interesting.

The poll has a large majority voting "yes, they're unconstitutional", but among people who are actually willing or able to justify their belief in a post, it's heavily tilted the other way.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. "Unconstitutional" is a buzzword

that can be used for "I don't like it", whether it's mandatory minimum sentences, or income tax. I haven't seen anything saying that a criminal law bill can't define a range of punishments.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. Posted Twice. Sorry

.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. What About The "I'm Not Sure" Crowd?

I'm a member of that. There seems to be an inherent lack of "Co-equality" in the passing of mandatory sentences, in that it implies a superiority of the legislature over the judicial. Can't be both superior and co-equal, so the contradiction is inherent.

However, your idea that maximum sentences create the same contradiction carries weight. So, at what point is the legislature allowed to put constraints around the judiciary? A out of control judge could assign 50 years to a traffic scofflaw? That would be ridiculous, too! So, good point, that.

But, i think the problem that is intrinsic in these mandatory sentence laws is that they are, by definition, broad and generalized. Judges need to weigh cases individually and on their own merit and circumstances. So, forcing that judge to ignore the details and apply a manadatory sentence seems capricious and unfair.

And, in theory anyway, the Constitution is intended to be a document that prevents the gov't from setting up systems that are unfair to one class at the expense of another. (Defining class in the broadest sense, not merely financial.) Not allowing a judge to use the discretion for which they are paid seems to violate the basic "fairness" premise of any constitution. It, to me, creates a generalized superiority of the legislature over the judicial that is just as questionable as Silverspoon's "unitary executive" concept.

But, someone has to draw the lines for the judiciary to follow, and it seems best left to the legislature.

So, with all that said, i'm still not sure. But, at least i know why i'm torn.
The Professor