Research Analysis and Position Statement
Andrea Schnitz
Huntington University

Synopsis Today, the federal prison system is operating at 40% over capacity. Many of these prisoners in the system are still imprisoned because of mandatory minimum sentences. Many of them committed non-violent crimes and are being punished longer than what the actual crime may deserve. In fact, some have been wrongly accused or were only vaguely associated with a crime, but are being imprisoned for the mandatory minimum. The number of prisoners is increasing because of mandatory minimums, which is requiring more funding from the states. The major issue associated with mandatory minimum sentencing is that it has increased imprisonment, but it has not reduced the crime rate, especially in drug related cases.
Position Statement Mandatory minimum sentences have increased imprisonment, which has cost the states more money. Having mandatory minimum sentences has not reduced crime and therefore, is not effective. It should not be repealed completely, but there need to be certain adjustments made according to what crimes and type of involvement with crimes require mandatory sentencing. The U.S. Senate is considering two bills that would revise the federal sentencing laws in the case of mandatory minimum sentences. The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 expands the existing sentencing “safety valve” by allowing a judge to depart downward from any mandatory minimum, if the court finds that it is necessary to do so in order t avoid imposing an unjust sentence. The Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013 applies only to non-violent drug crimes and would permit a district judge to issue sentences without regard to any mandatory minimum if the court finds that the defendant meets certain criminal history requirements and did not commit a disqualifying offense. Although the Smarter Sentencing Act takes