Breaking down mandatory minimum sentences: Let the judges judge, not the prosecutors

The Idaho Legislature is currently debating the wisdom of continuing “mandatory minimum” sentences for the sale or possession of drugs. The outcome will say a lot about our criminal justice system.

The question for lawmakers really boils down to this: Should judges have discretion as to the sentence to be applied in a drug case? Or should we continue the current practice, one that takes the decision out of a judge’s hands and, in effect, gives prosecutors discretion to lower the mandatory minimum sentence by charging a lesser crime?

Here’s a typical example of how that works: Idaho Code Section 37-2732B requires a minimum sentence of one year for possession of one pound or more of marijuana, three years for possession of five or more pounds, and five years for possession of 25 pounds or more.

Let’s say John Doe is arrested for possession of 25 pounds of marijuana. He faces at least five years in prison. But as part of a plea deal, the prosecutor can decide to reduce the charge to possession of five pounds of marijuana in exchange for a guilty plea. That saves the prosecutor the time and expense of a trial, and changes Mr. Doe’s mandatory minimum sentence from five years to three.

Thus, in our current system, there is no mandatory minimum “sentence” at all. The penalty is determined earlier, when a prosecutor decides what the final charge will be and thus what the mandatory minimum sentence will be. In the end, it’s clear that prosecutors, rather than judges, have the discretion to decide for or against a lower sentence.

Prosecutors are big advocates of these so-called mandatory minimum sentence laws. And why not? They’re the only ones in the judicial system who get to reduce the minimum sentence in individual cases. Judges, on the other hand, don’t have much choice: the charged amount dictates the minimum sentence.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the Legislature to enact laws that suggest a minimum sentence in the absence of extenuating or mitigating circumstances, and then leave it to the judge to weigh the circumstances and determine what the appropriate minimum sentence should be? Put simply, the Legislature could ask judges to use their judgment.

This is important because the judge doesn’t represent either party in a drug case. The judge is a neutral party. The judge should be the one to impartially decide what the right sentence should be for that particular case.

In a baseball game the umpire call the balls and strikes, rather than one of the opposing teams. For something as important as sentencing in the criminal justice system, shouldn’t we allow judges to make those decisions rather than giving one of the opposing parties the ability to basically decide what the minimum sentence will be?

Eliminating the mandatory minimum sentence requirement means everyone has a role: prosecutors prosecute, defense lawyers defend, and judges judge. It’s time we bring back that balanced approach.

This story was originally published March 5, 2019 at 8:18 PM.