Why have mandatory sentences been criticized as excessively harsh in some cases?

Mandatory sentencing is a legal penalty that requires courts to impose specific prison terms for certain crimes, regardless of the individual circumstances of the offense or the offender.1

Critics argue that these laws are excessively harsh and problematic for several reasons:

• Shift in Power: Mandatory sentencing transfers the authority to determine the length of a sentence from neutral judges to prosecutors. Prosecutors can influence the outcome by choosing which charges to bring, effectively triggering specific mandatory minimums.21
• Bias and Disparity: Critics contend that this shift has led to increased racial bias in the justice system. Studies have shown that prosecutors may bring charges with mandatory minimums more frequently against certain groups, contributing to sentencing disparities where some individuals receive significantly longer terms than others for the same crime.21
• Lack of Deterrence: Opponents argue that mandatory sentencing fails to effectively deter crime. In the United States, for example, the rise in mandatory sentencing since the 1970s has been accompanied by a substantial increase in incarceration rates rather than a reduction in criminal activity.21