Nearly everyone understands that every criminal act has some level of punishment associated with it.  People understand that premeditated murder, rape and drug trafficking can land the offender in prison for a very long time.  Even toddlers understand that playing with the scissors will land them in timeout.  

What is not so obvious to people is that the punishment associated with criminal acts is typically defined by statute.  Sometimes, the statute will spell out the length of time that someone could spend in prison if convicted of a certain crime.  For example, most misdemeanors carry maximum penalties that include up to 90 days in jail.  Maximum sentences are easy to understand.  If the defendant is convicted of the crime, the sentencing judge has the option to sentence the defendant to a term of incarceration up to the maximum allowed by statute. The judge typically has the discretion to sentence the defendant to less time than the maximum or no time at all.

Most people, however, do not know much about mandatory minimum sentences.  In short, there are some crimes for which the judge has very little or no discretion when sentencing the defendant.  Sometimes, in the case of a mandatory life sentence for premeditated murder, for example, most people understand and accept this outcome – even the defendant.

However, sometimes mandatory minimum sentences are imposed for reasons that are not so obvious (such as a long-forgotten policy debate that had nothing to do with the defendant being sentenced), and can lead to absurd results.  In 2009, when he was just 22 years old, a man named Patrick Matthews was sentenced to life in prison by a Louisiana state court for stealing a little over $1,000.00 of tools.  It was Matthews’ second time being convicted of a crime.  The first time was when he was 17 years old and was caught stealing from a pawn shop and fruit stand.  He served no time in jail for the first offense.  He received a life sentence for the second offense.  Louisiana has a habitual offender statute that prevented Matthews from receiving anything less than a life sentence for his 2009 crime.

Some states and the federal government have started to revisit the wisdom of handing out mandatory minimum sentences.  Already, the Obama administration has relaxed some of the mandatory minimum sentence guidelines for low-level offenders in federal drug conspiracy cases.  

There are several reasons put forth by those wishing to do away with mandatory minimum sentences.  First, there is the financial cost.  Mandatory minimum sentences mean that more people serve more time in jail, even for petty property crimes or minor drug offenses.  More time in jail means more taxpayer dollars taking care of prisoners.  

Second, there is the notion of fairness.  It seems unfair to lock somebody up for a long time (or for life in Matthews’ case) for a relatively minor crime.

Third, there is the societal impact.  Studies repeatedly show that children who grow up in households where one or both parents is incarcerated for a significant period of time fair worse by nearly every measure when compared to those who grew up in homes where parents were not incarcerated.

Fourth, there is the argument that mandatory minimum sentences have very little impact on the crime rate.  There is evidence both to support and to refute this argument.

Ultimately, the financial cost of locking up so many people for such a long time may prove to be the catalyst for change within the system.  It appears at the moment that mandatory minimum sentences in some form will remain part of legal system.  It also appears that, slowly but surely, mandatory minimums for non-violent petty offenses will be undone.

— Kassem Dakhlallah is a partner with Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group, P.C.  His practice focuses on complex litigation, including class actions, representative actions, commercial litigation, civil forfeiture and personal injury. He can be reached at (313) 846-6400 and kassem@jaafarandmahdi.com.