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 Nevada, as in other states, the criminal justice system has been influenced by the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses. These laws require judges to impose predetermined sentences for specific crimes, particularly drug offenses, as well as certain gun, pornography, and economic crimes, limiting judicial discretion. However, judges in federal courts, which also have jurisdiction in Nevada, are guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines when determining sentences for federal crimes. While these guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, judges must consider them and provide an explanation if they choose to depart from the recommended sentencing range, whether imposing a harsher (upward departure) or more lenient (downward departure) sentence. This framework aims to ensure consistency and fairness in federal sentencing, while still allowing for individualized consideration of the circumstances of each case.