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

Abstract

This paper examines the contentious issue of mandatory minimum sentences within the U.S. criminal justice system, exploring their implications for justice and fairness. Advocates argue that these laws enhance public safety and deter crime by imposing consistent penalties for specific offenses. However, critics highlight the disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, particularly racial minorities, who are often left without adequate legal representation. The paper provides a historical overview of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, tracing their origins and evolution, particularly in response to the war on drugs. It delves into arguments for and against these laws, addressing concerns about their inflexibility and the potential for unjust outcomes that disregard individual circumstances. The analysis reveals that mandatory minimums often exacerbate existing inequalities and fail to fulfill their intended deterrent effect. Case studies illustrate the harsh realities faced by individuals subjected to these sentences, emphasizing the need for reform. The paper concludes by advocating for more flexible sentencing guidelines and comprehensive criminal justice reforms that prioritize fairness and rehabilitation over punitive measures, encouraging a shift toward a more equitable legal system.