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 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 require judges to impose a predetermined minimum sentence for specific crimes, particularly drug offenses, and certain types of gun, pornography, and economic crimes. Despite this, judges still retain some discretion, especially in cases not governed by mandatory minimums. At the federal level, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide a framework for sentencing consistency across the federal court system. While these guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, federal judges in South Dakota must consider them when sentencing a defendant. If a judge decides to deviate from these guidelines, they are required to provide an explanation for the departure, whether it is an upward or downward adjustment. This ensures that while there is an effort to standardize sentencing, judges can still account for the unique circumstances of each case.