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 Tennessee, as in other states, the criminal justice system has experienced a shift from traditional discretionary sentencing to a more structured approach due to the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses. These mandatory minimums are predetermined sentences that judges must impose for specific crimes, particularly drug offenses, and they limit judicial discretion. However, Tennessee judges still retain some level of discretion in many cases and must weigh the facts and circumstances to determine appropriate sentences. At the federal level, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide a framework for sentencing in federal courts. While these guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, federal judges in Tennessee and elsewhere are required to consider them when sentencing a defendant. If a judge decides to deviate from these guidelines, they must provide an explanation for either an upward or downward departure in the sentence. This ensures that while there is a push for uniformity in sentencing, there is also room for individualized consideration based on the unique aspects of each case.