Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: Justice Or Injustice

While times change, the issue of Mandatory minimum sentencing in law which sounds simple but is actually multifaceted when you start thinking about it. Which in simpler terms means that the law says you have to give at least a certain minimum punishment for a particular crime, irrespective of mitigating circumstances. This idea started mainly to make sure that people who do serious crimes get punished properly. However, many people argue that it can sometimes lead to injustice because every case is different. This paper will examine what mandatory minimum sentencing is, why it was introduced, and whether it is really fair or not.

The Origin of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

The policy at hand being Mandatory minimums became very popular in countries like the United States in the 1980s during the "War on Drugs". The government wanted to make sure that drug dealers and other criminals received tough sentences. As informed by the United States Sentencing Commission (2017), mandatory minimums were supposed to deter crime and promote uniformity in sentencing. Even in India, some laws have mandatory minimum punishments, like the NDPS Act for drug-related offences.

The Purpose Behind Mandatory Minimums

The very reason behind such laws is to create fear among people who might commit crimes. The drafters of laws thought that if criminals knew they would surely get a heavy punishment, they would think twice before committing the crime. Also, it would stop judges from being too lenient. One of the major reasons was bringing in Uniformity in punishment so that two people committing the same crime do not get totally different punishments.

Problems with Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Over time , significant flaws in this policy emerged . One major issue is that it takes away the power of judges to look at each case individually. Even sometimes a person might have a very strong reason for what they did, but because of mandatory minimums, the judge has no choice but to give a heavy sentence. For example, there have been cases where a first-time offender was sent to jail for decades just because of small drug possession.

Moreover, mandatory minimums have often been criticized for being too harsh on marginalized communities. For example in the United States, studies By The Sentencing Project (2021) shows that African-Americans are imprisoned for six times higher rates than white Americans for drug related offenses and Hispanics are disproportionately affected (Mauer, 2010). In India too, some argue that strict laws like the NDPS Act can sometimes end up punishing addicts who need help, not jail.

Justice or Injustice?

A significant number of critics argue that mandatory minimums bring injustice rather than justice. Every case has its own facts, its own story which goes unheard in essence . For example, someone forced into committing a crime because of poverty or threat might deserve a second chance, but because of a mandatory sentence policy that is disregarded by ignoring all these reasons. Justice is not just about strict punishment; it is also about fairness and understanding.

While many believe that mandatory minimums are necessary to keep society safe. Without them, dangerous criminals might get away with small punishments. In crimes like human trafficking or terrorism, mandatory minimums send a strong message that such acts will not be tolerated.

International Perspective

Many countries have also faced this anomaly. Canada, for example, had introduced mandatory minimums for certain crimes but their Supreme Court struck down some of them, saying they violated human rights (R v. Nur, 2015). On the other hand the UK, judges have more discretion even in serious crimes, although they have sentencing guidelines.

In India, courts have sometimes criticized mandatory minimums but have nevertheless upheld them when Parliament has made a clear law. Still, there is a trend of courts trying to interpret the laws in a way that lessens the harshness if possible.

Examples of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

The renowned case of Weldon Angelos in the USA. He was sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling marijuana because he also had a gun on him. While giving this judgement even the judges said the punishment was too harsh but his hands were tied because of the mandatory minimum law.

Another Indian example could be found in the Prevention of Corruption Act, where certain minimum sentences are prescribed to combat corruption among public officials.

Arguments in Favor of Mandatory Minimums

People who support mandatory minimums say that they:

• Act as a strong deterrent to crime
• Make sure that everyone is treated equally
• Show that society takes certain crimes very seriously
• Stop corruption and bias in sentencing

These arguments are strong, especially in cases where public safety is at risk.

Arguments Against Mandatory Minimums

People who oppose mandatory minimums say that they:

• Remove the flexibility of the judge
• Lead to unjust results in special cases
• Disproportionately affect certain communities
• Cause overcrowding in prisons without solving the root causes of crime

These points show that while the idea might have been good, in practice it sometimes does more harm than good.

Recent Developments and Reforms

Many countries are now thinking about bringing some changes. In the USA, the "First Step Act" passed in 2018 reduced some mandatory minimum sentences, especially for non-violent drug offences. Likewise, in India, there is discussion about making laws more flexible so that small offenders are treated differently from hardcore criminals.

We accept that the Mandatory minimum sentencing is a concept with good intentions but problematic results. This can be explained by a latin term “cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex” which means “when the reason for a law ceases, the law itself ceases” as we are aware that crime and punishment must be balanced to meet the essence of law. While it tries to promote justice by being tough on crime, it sometimes ends up being unjust to individuals. A balanced approach is needed where judges have guidelines but also enough freedom to make fair decisions based on the facts of each case. Finality of law is to correct and true justice is not just about punishing but also about understanding. We as Societies must constantly check whether their laws are achieving fairness or just adding to the problems. The long play of procedural lacunae and institutional inertia creates what we call a shield for those responsible for egregious misuse of power. The judiciary must rise beyond rhetorical observations and elitist fallacies to actually provide meaningfully enforce accountability through precedential firmness. Legislative inertia, masked as complexity and used as a intellectual excuse for inability or disinclination to act or change, cannot justify prolonged silence when individual liberties are compromised. The failure of constitutional courts to deal with and assert their role as sentinels of justice, the very legitimacy of legal safeguards risks irreparable dilution. This is not a matter of judicial discretion—it is a constitutional imperative.

Author is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. student at Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur. Views Are Personal.

References

• United States Sentencing Commission. (2017). Mandatory Minimum Penalties.
• Mauer, M. (2010). Race to Incarcerate.
• R v. Nur, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773 (Supreme Court of Canada).
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (India).
• The First Step Act, 2018 (United States).
• The Sentencing Project, The Color Of Justice : Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons (2021)