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 Minnesota, as in other states, the criminal justice system has experienced a tension between judicial discretion and mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Mandatory minimum sentences are fixed prison terms prescribed by law for certain offenses, which judges are compelled to impose, regardless of the individual circumstances of the case. These laws are often applied to drug offenses, as well as specific gun, pornography, and economic crimes, limiting the ability of judges to tailor sentences based on the unique facts of each case. However, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which apply to defendants in the federal court system, offer a structured sentencing framework that judges should consider, though they are not strictly bound by these guidelines. When federal judges in Minnesota deviate from these guidelines, they must provide an explanation for their decision, whether it is an upward or downward departure from the recommended sentence. This requirement ensures that sentencing decisions are transparent and that the rationale for departing from the guidelines is clear and justifiable.