Criminal justice systems in the United States—in both state and federal courts—traditionally allowed judges to consider all of the facts and circumstances of a case to determine a convicted defendant’s appropriate sentence. But the United States Congress and many state legislatures have passed laws that force judges to give fixed jail or prison terms (mandatory minimum sentences) to persons convicted of certain crimes—often drug offenses, but also certain gun, pornography, and economic crimes.

For example, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are non-binding rules that provide a uniform sentencing policy for defendants convicted of crimes in the United States federal court system. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory, but judges must consider them when determining a criminal defendant’s sentence—and when a judge exercises discretion and departs from the Guidelines, the judge must explain what factors warranted the increased or decreased sentence—known as an upward departure or a downward departure.

In Kansas, as in other states, the criminal justice system has experienced a shift from traditional discretionary sentencing to a more structured approach due to the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses. These mandatory minimums are statutory requirements that compel judges to impose a predetermined minimum sentence for specific crimes, particularly those related to drug offenses, as well as certain gun, pornography, and economic crimes. While these laws limit judicial discretion, judges in Kansas state courts still consider the facts and circumstances of each case within the constraints of these mandatory minimums. At the federal level, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide a framework for sentencing in federal courts. Although these guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker (2005), federal judges must still consult them and take them into account when sentencing a defendant. If a federal judge in Kansas chooses to depart from these guidelines, either with an upward or downward departure, they are required to provide an explanation for their decision, ensuring that the sentencing process remains transparent and justifiable.