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 North Dakota, as in other states, the criminal justice system has experienced a shift from traditional discretionary sentencing to a more structured system due to the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses. These mandatory minimums require judges to impose fixed sentences for specific crimes, particularly drug offenses, and can limit judicial discretion. However, judges still retain some level of discretion in many cases and must consider the circumstances of each case. At the federal level, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide a framework for sentencing, although they are advisory rather than mandatory. Judges must consider these guidelines when sentencing a defendant in federal court, but they are allowed to depart from them if they provide clear reasons for doing so. This can result in either an upward departure (a longer sentence) or a downward departure (a shorter sentence) from the suggested range. Both state and federal systems aim to balance the need for consistency in sentencing with the need to consider the unique aspects of each case.