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 Pennsylvania, as in other states, the criminal justice system has experienced a tension between judicial discretion and mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Mandatory minimum sentences require judges to impose a predetermined minimum period of incarceration for certain offenses, particularly drug-related crimes, specific violent offenses, and some gun, pornography, and economic crimes. However, the constitutionality of certain mandatory minimum laws has been challenged, leading to changes and legal debates. For federal cases, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide a framework for sentencing, although they are advisory rather than mandatory. Judges in federal court must consider these guidelines but are not bound to follow them strictly. When deviating from the guidelines, a judge must provide an explanation for the departure, whether it is an upward or downward adjustment. This system aims to ensure consistency while still allowing for judicial discretion based on the unique circumstances of each case.