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 South Dakota, as in other states, the criminal justice system has been influenced by the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses. These mandatory minimums require judges to impose a predetermined minimum length of incarceration for specific crimes, particularly drug offenses, and can limit judicial discretion. However, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which apply to defendants in the federal court system, are advisory rather than mandatory. While South Dakota judges must consider these guidelines during sentencing, they are not bound to follow them strictly. Judges can deviate from the guidelines, but they must provide an explanation for any upward or downward departures from the suggested sentencing range. This system aims to ensure some consistency in federal sentencing while still allowing for individualized consideration of the circumstances of each case.