{{Short description|Minimum penalties for crimes}} {{Use mdy dates|date=May 2021}}
{{Criminal procedure (trial)}} '''Mandatory sentencing''' requires that people convicted of certain crimes serve a predefined term of [[imprisonment]], removing the discretion of judges to take issues such as extenuating circumstances and a person's likelihood of rehabilitation into consideration when sentencing. Research shows the discretion of sentencing is effectively shifted to prosecutors, as they decide what charges to bring against a defendant. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws. They can be applied to crimes ranging from minor offences to extremely violent crimes including murder. In the United States, several mandatory sentencing laws have been overturned by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] for being unconstitutional, and mandatory sentencing has resulted in prison terms that are considered extremely disproportionate compared to the crimes committed.
Mandatory sentences are considered a "tough on crime" approach that intend to serve as a [[Deterrence (legal)|general deterrence]] for potential criminals and [[Recidivism|repeat offenders]], who are expected to avoid crime because they can be certain of their sentence if they are caught.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf|title=Deterrence in Criminal Justice; Evaluating Certainty vs Severity of Punishment|last=Wright|first=Valerie|date=November 2010|publisher=The Sentencing Project|access-date=November 15, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161213072016/http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf|archive-date=December 13, 2016}}</ref> However, studies have shown that the effects of mandatory sentencing are mixed, and that in some cases crime increases following their implementation. Mandatory sentencing is not cost-effective compared to other methods of reducing crime, and has been found to disproportionately impact [[Indigenous peoples]] and other minorities in several countries.
==History==
===North America=== Throughout US history, prison sentences were primarily founded upon discretionary sentencing. Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the [[United States Congress]] passed the [[Boggs Act of 1951]].<ref>Rothwell, V. (2011). "Boggs Act". In M. Kleiman, & J. Hawdon (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of drug policy''. (pp. 96–98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. {{doi|10.4135/9781412976961.n42}}</ref> The act made a first time [[Cannabis (drug)|cannabis]] possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses.<ref name=pbs>[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html Busted – America's War on Marijuana: Marijuana Timeline] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140709101022/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html |date=July 9, 2014 }}. [[Frontline (U.S. TV series)]]. [[Public Broadcasting Service]].</ref> With the passage of the [[Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986]] Congress enacted mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including marijuana, with 2-3 years for a first offence and 5-10 years for a second.<ref name=pbssnitch>[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/primer/ Snitch: Drug Laws and Snitching – a Primer] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151023145138/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/primer/ |date=October 23, 2015 }}. [[Frontline (U.S. TV series)]]. The article also has a chart of mandatory minimum sentences for first time drug offenders.</ref><ref name=frontlinedrugwars>[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/ Thirty Years of America's Drug War] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110224060320/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/ |date=February 24, 2011 }}. [[Frontline (U.S. TV series)]].</ref> The [[Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986|Anti-Drug Abuse Act]] of 1986 also implemented mandatory sentencing for offences related to cocaine.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Jones|first=Faith|date=April 15, 2014|title=Encyclopaedia Judaica. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, editors. 2nd edition. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 22 vols. (18,015 pp.). ISBN 978-0-02-865928-2. $2,263. Electronic version published by Gale Cengage Learning (Gale Virtual Reference Library). ISBN 978-0-02-866097-4.|journal=Judaica Librarianship|volume=15|issue=1|pages=41–45|doi=10.14263/2330-2976.1041|s2cid=144308376|issn=2330-2976|doi-access=free}}</ref> In 1994, [[Safety valve (law)|Safety Valve]] laws were created to reduce mandatory sentencing for certain nonviolent, non-managerial drug offenders with little or no criminal history.<ref name=safety-valve>{{cite web|title=Exception #1 to Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Federal Safety Valve for Drug Offences: 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)|url=http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FS-Fed-Safety-Valve-for-Drug-Offenses-3553f-NW.pdf|publisher=FAMM|access-date=May 6, 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140507063028/http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FS-Fed-Safety-Valve-for-Drug-Offenses-3553f-NW.pdf|archive-date=May 7, 2014}}</ref>
Individual states in the US can have mandatory sentences. In 1994, California introduced a [[three-strikes law]], which imposed a mandatory term of life-imprisonment for a third felony conviction; the law was intended to reduce crime by deterring repeated offenders.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Datta|first=Anusua|date=June 2017|title=California's three strikes law revisited: assessing the long-term effects of the law|journal=Atlantic Economic Journal|volume=45|issue=2|pages=225–249|doi=10.1007/s11293-017-9544-8|s2cid=157948227}}</ref> Examples of people who are considered to have received excessive punishments under such laws include Curtis Roberts, who was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 50 years for three non-violent thefts which combined only obtained $116,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.illinoistimes.com/arts-culture/from-san-quentin-to-springfield-16731251 |title=From San Quentin to Springfield |last=Klickna |first=Cinda Ackerman |date=20 April 2023 |work=[[Illinois Times]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240418222234/https://www.illinoistimes.com/arts-culture/from-san-quentin-to-springfield-16731251 |archive-date=18 April 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Santos Reyes (prisoner)|Santos Reyes]], who was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 29 years after he was convicted of perjury in relation to cheating on a drivers licence test. Reyes had previous convictions for burglary and armed robbery more than 11 years earlier, making the perjury charge his third strike.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/los-angeles-robber-testifies-in-1986-case-2552122.php |title=Robber testifies in 1986 case, hoping to invalidate 3rd strike |last=Sterngold |first=James |date=14 September 2006 |work=[[SFGate]] |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120714071211/http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/LOS-ANGELES-Robber-testifies-in-1986-case-2552122.php |archive-date=14 July 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref>
Following their implementation in California, three-strike laws were subsequently adopted in many American [[jurisdiction]]s. The state of Florida has a very strict minimum sentencing policy known as [[10-20-Life]], which includes the following minimums: 10 years' imprisonment for using a gun during a crime, 20 years' imprisonment for firing a gun during a crime, and 25 years' imprisonment in addition to any other sentence for shooting somebody, regardless of whether they survive or not.<ref>Section [http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.087.html 775.087(2)(a)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170629070750/http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799%2F0775%2FSections%2F0775.087.html |date=June 29, 2017 }} 1, 2, and 3, Florida Statutes</ref>
Separate from each state's own courts, [[Federal judiciary of the United States|federal courts in the United States]] are guided by the [[Federal Sentencing Guidelines]].{{ref|DEA}}<ref>{{cite book|last1=Doyle|first1=Charles|title=Mandatory Minimum Sentencing of Federal Drug Offenses|date=January 11, 2018|publisher=Congressional Research Service|location=Washington, DC|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45074.pdf|access-date=January 27, 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504150727/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45074.pdf|archive-date=May 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminaljustice/wcc_freeman.authcheckdam.pdf|title=What Role Should the Guidelines Play in Sentencing White-Collar Offenders}}</ref> When a guideline sentencing range is less than the statutory mandatory minimum, the latter prevails. Under the [[Controlled Substances Act]], prosecutors have great power to influence a defendant's sentence and thereby create incentives for defendants to accept a [[plea agreement]]. For example, defendants with prior drug felonies are often subject to harsh mandatory minimums, but a prosecutor can exercise discretion to not file a prior felony information. Then the mandatory minimum will not be applied.<ref>{{citation|volume=47|publisher=Vill. L. Rev.|pages=921|year=2002|title=Departing Ways: Uniformity, Disparity and Cooperation in Federal Drug Sentences|author=Simons, Michael A.|url=http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/vllalr47§ion=39|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120401073014/http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals%2Fvllalr47§ion=39|archive-date=April 1, 2012}}</ref> [[Juries in the United States#Federal jury|United States federal juries]] are generally not allowed to be informed of the mandatory minimum penalties that may apply if the accused is convicted because the jury's role is limited to a determination of [[Guilt (law)|guilt]] or innocence.<ref>{{cite book |title=Informed Conviction: Instructing the Jury about Mandatory Sentencing Consequences |author=Kristen K. Sauer |publisher=Columbia Law Review |volume=95 |number=5 |date=June 1995 |pages=1232–1272}}</ref> However, defense attorneys sometimes have found ways to impart this information to juries; for instance, it is occasionally possible, on [[cross-examination]] of an [[informant]] who faced similar charges, to ask how much time he was facing. It is sometimes deemed permissible because it is a means of impeaching the witness. However, in at least one state court case in [[Idaho]], it was deemed impermissible.<ref>{{cite court |court=Court of Appeals of Idaho; |litigants=State of Idaho v. Mario A. Ruiz |date=February 19, 2009 |url=http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/Ruiz33053.pdf |url-status=dead|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120501140219/http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/Ruiz33053.pdf |archive-date=May 1, 2012 }}</ref>
In 2013, United States Attorney General [[Eric H. Holder, Jr.]] announced that the Justice Department would follow a new policy restricting mandatory minimum sentences in certain drug cases. ''[[The Washington Post]]'' reported in 2019 that some critics held this memo as responsible for overall more prosecutions dropped, a drop in drug enforcement agent morale, and [[fentanyl]] and heroin overdoses soaring.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Scott Higham |last2=Sari Horwitz |last3=Katie Zezima |title=The Fentanyl Failure |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/fentanyl-epidemic-obama-administration/ |access-date=March 14, 2019 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=March 13, 2019 |quote=After the Holder memo, Capuano said federal prosecutors would no longer take the lower-level cases and morale among his drug agents plummeted as heroin and fentanyl overdoses soared.}}</ref> Attorney General Holder held that the charges placed on an individual should reflect the uniqueness of the case and consideration in assessing and fairly representing his/her given conduct. This purpose is to prevent recidivism.<ref>Memorandum from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, to U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Criminal Division regarding Department Policy on Charging Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Recidivist Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases (August 12, 2013) available at: {{cite web |url=http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HolderMandatoryMinimumsMemo.pdf |title=Department Policy on Charging Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Recidivist Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases |access-date=October 29, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131031153100/http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HolderMandatoryMinimumsMemo.pdf |archive-date=October 31, 2013 }} (access-date: October 28, 2013)</ref> In ''[[Alleyne v. United States]]'' (2013) the Supreme Court held that increasing a sentence past the mandatory minimum requirement must be submitted by a jury and found factual beyond a reasonable doubt. It increases the burden on the prosecutor to show that the sentence is necessary for the individual crime by requiring that a mandatory minimum sentence be denied for a defendant unless they fulfill certain criteria.
Some mandatory sentence laws have been found to be unconstitutional by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]. In 1976, mandatory death sentences were determined to be unconstitutional, following the decision in ''[[Gregg v. Georgia#North Carolina|Woodson v. North Carolina]]''.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Brannen|first=Daniel|date=2011|title=Supreme Court Drama|journal=Cases That Changed America|volume=2|pages=287–290}}</ref> In 2005, [[United States v. Booker]] found that mandatory federal sentencing guidelines violated the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]] right to a trial by jury. This resulted in the guidelines becoming advisory rather than mandatory.<ref>{{ussc|name=United States v. Booker|volume=543|page=220|pin=|year=2005}}</ref> In 2012, the case of ''[[Miller v. Alabama]]'' ruled it is unconstitutional to sentence people under 18 to mandatory life-imprisonment without parole.<ref>{{Citation |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18court.html |title=Justices Limit Life Sentences for Juveniles |newspaper=[[New York Times]] |first=Adam |last=Liptak |date=May 17, 2010}}.</ref>
Mandatory sentencing in the US is more likely to affect minority groups. In US federal prisons, Black Americans sentenced under mandatory minimum drug laws grew from under 10% in 1984 to 28% by 1990, representing a significantly larger shift than found in the federal prison population in general.<ref name=meierhoefer1992>Barbara S. Meierhoefer, [https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=137258 The General Effect of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A Longitudinal Study of Federal Sentences Imposed] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304073519/https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=137258 |date=March 4, 2016 }} (Washington DC: [[Federal Judicial Center]], 1992), p. 20. [http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/geneffmm.pdf/$file/geneffmm.pdf PDF file] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100601213342/http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/geneffmm.pdf/$file/geneffmm.pdf |date=June 1, 2010 }}.</ref> As of 2011, of the people convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum punishment and who remained subject to that penalty at sentencing, 38.5 percent were Black, 31.8 percent were Hispanic, and 27.5 percent were White.<ref name="ussc.gov">{{cite web|title=Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System|date=October 28, 2013|url=http://www.ussc.gov/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/mandatory-minimum-penalties/report-congress-mandatory-minimum-penalties-federal-criminal-justice-system|publisher=United States Sentencing Commission|access-date=May 6, 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140506200356/http://www.ussc.gov/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/mandatory-minimum-penalties/report-congress-mandatory-minimum-penalties-federal-criminal-justice-system|archive-date=May 6, 2014}}</ref>
In Canada, [[life imprisonment]] and a period of parole ineligibility are mandatory [[Murder (Canadian law)|for murder]]. The minimum parole ineligibility periods for first-degree murder are 25 years for an adult or youth tried and sentenced as an adult, and 10 years for a youth. Until 1961, murder in Canada was punishable only by death, provided that the offender was a sane adult.<ref>"206. Punishment for capital murder-Mandatory. (1) Everyone who commits capital murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to death." An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Capital Murder)</ref> Until September 1, 1999, the ''National Defence Act'' specified a mandatory death sentence for certain acts (cowardice, desertion, unlawful surrender) if done traitorously.<ref>{{Citation |year=1997 |title=BILL C-25: An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts |publisher=[[House of Commons of Canada]] |url=https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/361/Government/C-25/C-25_1/C-25_1.pdf |access-date=2 November 2025}}</ref>
===Europe=== Denmark has mandatory minimum sentences for murder (five years to life) and [[regicide]] (life in prison § 115), deadly arson is punished with imprisonment from 4 years to life, and for an illegal loaded gun one year in state prison.<ref>{{cite web|title=Kapitel 2 – Lovgivningsmagtens angivelse af strafniveau|url=http://jm.schultzboghandel.dk/upload/microsites/jm/ebooks/bet1531/bet/kap02.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195848/http://jm.schultzboghandel.dk/upload/microsites/jm/ebooks/bet1531/bet/kap02.html|archive-date=October 29, 2013}}</ref>
In Germany, murder for pleasure, sexual gratification, greed or other base motives, by stealth or cruelly or by means that pose a danger to the public or to facilitate or cover up another offense is mandatorily punished [[Life imprisonment in Germany|by life imprisonment]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1802|title=German Criminal Code|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170814022631/https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1802|archive-date=August 14, 2017}}</ref>
In Ireland, [[Acts of the Oireachtas]] specify a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder and [[Treason in the Republic of Ireland|treason]], and mandatory minimum sentences for various lesser offences.<ref name="HurleyKeyes2019">{{cite web |last1=Hurley |first1=Daniel |last2=Keyes |first2=Finn |title=Mandatory Sentences: Wayne Ellis v Minister for Justice and Equality |url=https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2019/2019-05-22_l-rs-note-mandatory-sentences-wayne-ellis-v-minister-for-justice-and-equality_en.pdf |website=Oireachtas Library & Research Service Notes |publisher=Oireachtas |access-date=5 June 2021 |date=22 May 2019}}</ref> A mandatory minimum sentence may be truly mandatory or may be presumptive, giving a judge discretion to impose a lesser sentence in exceptional circumstances.<ref name="HurleyKeyes2019"/> Mandatory sentences have been challenged on grounds that they violate the [[separation of powers]] required by [[Constitution of Ireland|the constitution]], by allowing the Oireachtas (legislature) to interfere in the judicial process.<ref name="HurleyKeyes2019"/> In 2012, the [[Supreme Court (Ireland)|Supreme Court]] ruled that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder was constitutional.<ref>{{cite BAILII |court=IESC |date=14 May 2010 |year=2010 |num=34 |litigants=Lynch & Whelan v Minister for Justice}}</ref><ref name="HurleyKeyes2019"/> However, in 2019, it ruled that a mandatory minimum sentence had to apply for all offenders, not for certain classes of offenders. It struck out a sentence of five years for possession of a firearm, because it was truly mandatory only for a second offence, whereas it would have been presumptively mandatory for a first offence.<ref>{{cite BAILII |court=IESC |date=15 May 2019 |year=2019 |num=30 |litigants=Ellis v Minister for Justice and Equality & Ors |format=2}}</ref><ref name="HurleyKeyes2019"/> A mandatory sentence for a second offence of drug trafficking was struck out in 2021 for similar reasons; the conviction was upheld but the sentence referred back to the [[Circuit Court (Ireland)|Circuit Court]] for reconsideration.<ref>{{cite news |last1=O'Faolain |first1=Aodhan |title=High Court rules section of Misuse of Drugs Act is unconstitutional |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/high-court-rules-section-of-misuse-of-drugs-act-is-unconstitutional-1.4584712 |access-date=5 June 2021 |newspaper=The Irish Times |date=4 June 2021 |language=en}}</ref>
In the United Kingdom, upon conviction for murder, the court must sentence the defendant to [[life imprisonment]]. The law requires that courts must set a minimum term before they become eligible for parole. For this purpose five "starting points" are in place that give guidance to a judge to impose a sentence in each different case of murder. These range from 12 years' imprisonment for cases of murder committed by a person under 18, to a [[whole life order]], in cases that involve such "exceptionally" high aggravating factors, such as the murder of two or more persons, or the murder of a child following abduction or with sexual/sadistic motivation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_mandatory_life_sentences_in_murder_cases/#an05|title=Sentencing – Mandatory life sentences in murder cases: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130129154421/http://cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_mandatory_life_sentences_in_murder_cases/#an05|archive-date=January 29, 2013}}</ref> The United Kingdom also has three other mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, namely: a minimum of 7 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of trafficking, supplying or producing Class A drugs for the third or subsequent time; a minimum of 5 years' imprisonment (for a person over 18) or 3 years' imprisonment (for a person aged 16–17) for possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, transfer or sale of a prohibited firearm or weapon for the first or subsequent time; and a minimum of 3 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of a domestic burglary for the third or subsequent time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/mandatory_and_minimum_custodial_sentences/#drug|title=Mandatory and Minimum Custodial Sentences: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171124021806/http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/mandatory_and_minimum_custodial_sentences/#drug|archive-date=November 24, 2017}}</ref>
A "three strikes" policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory life sentence on a conviction for a second "serious" violent or sexual offence (i.e. "two strikes" law), a minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offence involving a [[class A drug]], and a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for those convicted for the third time of burglary. An amendment by the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] opposition established that mandatory sentences should not be imposed if the judge considered it unjust.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/97043--a.htm|title=Legislation.gov.uk|website=www.opsi.gov.uk|access-date=May 4, 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071126031620/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/97043--a.htm|archive-date=November 26, 2007}}</ref> According to figures released by the British government in 2005, just three drug dealers and eight burglars received mandatory sentences in the next seven years, because judges thought a longer sentence was unjust in all other drug and burglary cases where the defendant was found guilty. However, in 2005 a [[Criminal Justice Act 2003#Dangerous offenders|new "two strikes" law]] became effective, requiring courts to presume that a criminal who commits his second violent or dangerous offence deserves a life sentence unless the judge is satisfied that the defendant is not a danger to the public.<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030044.htm Text of the Criminal Justice Act 2003] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060704202159/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030044.htm |date=July 4, 2006 }} and [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/20030007.htm Text of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060207120000/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/20030007.htm |date=February 7, 2006 }} from [[The Stationery Office]]</ref> This resulted in far more life sentences than the 1997 legislation. In response to [[prison overcrowding]], the law was [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008|changed in 2008]] to reduce the number of such sentences being passed, by restoring judicial discretion and abolishing the presumption that a repeat offender is dangerous.
===Oceania=== In 1996, 12-month mandatory sentencing was introduced for third offences for burglary by [[Western Australia]] through amendments to the 1913 Criminal Code.<ref name="mandatory_nt_wa">{{cite web |url=https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/submissions_un_hr_committee/5_mandatory_sentencing.pdf |title=Mandatory Sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia |access-date=March 15, 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402165351/https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/submissions_un_hr_committee/5_mandatory_sentencing.pdf |archive-date=April 2, 2015 }}</ref> In 1997, mandatory "three strikes" laws were introduced for property offences in the [[Northern Territory]], which raised incarceration rates of Indigenous women by 223% in the first year.<ref name="mandatory_nt_wa"/><ref>{{citation|pages=26–36|year=1999|title=Submission to Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into mandatory detention laws|author=Australian Women Lawyer's Association}}</ref> The mandatory sentencing laws caused controversy<ref name=controversy/> and sparked debate due to the laws discriminative impacts on Indigenous Australians.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/pathways-to-justice-inquiry-into-the-incarceration-rate-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-alrc-report-133/8-mandatory-sentencing/impact-of-mandatory-sentencing/ |title=Impact of mandatory sentencing |date=11 January 2018 |work=[[Australian Law Reform Commission]]}}</ref> Property crime actually increased after the mandatory sentencing law was introduced, and decreased after it was repealed.<ref name=abcoz>{{cite web |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-05/does-mandatory-sentencing-reduce-crime/5225986 |title=Mandatory sentencing: does it reduce crime? |date=5 February 2014 |work=[[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140205075701/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-05/does-mandatory-sentencing-reduce-crime/5225986 |archive-date=5 February 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> A mandatory minimum sentence in [[Victoria (state)|Victoria]] for driving without a licence was abolished in 2010 after it was found to have no impact on reducing crime or protecting the community, though was found to increase strain on the criminal justice system.<ref name=lawcouncil/>
New South Wales has two mandatory sentences. The Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2011 introduced mandatory life sentence without parole for a person convicted of murdering a police officer.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/8E6D73EF3AD93FEDCA25789A002345E2 |title=Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2011 - NSW Parliament |access-date=October 26, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141026032031/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/8E6D73EF3AD93FEDCA25789A002345E2 |archive-date=October 26, 2014 }}</ref> Also, the Crimes and Other Legislation (Assault and Intoxication) Amendment 2014 introduced mandatory minimum sentencing of 8 years for alcohol fuelled acts of violence,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/ACEF6914DAC30C0ECA257C6F0080407D |title=Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Bill 2014 - NSW Parliament |access-date=October 26, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141026035106/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/ACEF6914DAC30C0ECA257C6F0080407D |archive-date=October 26, 2014 }}</ref> as a response to the cases of [[sucker punch|king hit]] assaults in Sydney. These laws were championed by NSW Premier [[Barry O'Farrell]] largely due to the wide media coverage of similar cases.<ref>[The Honorable Barry O’Farrell MP ‘Lockouts & Mandatory Minimums to be Introduced to Tackle Drug and Alcohol Violence’ (Media Release) January 21, 2014.]</ref><ref>{{cite AustLII|NSWCCA|120|2014|litigants=R v Loveridge |date=July 4, 2014 |courtname=auto}}; {{cite AustLII|NSWSC|1638|2013|litigants=R v Loveridge |date=November 8, 2013 |courtname=auto}}; Julia Quilter, "One-Punch Laws, Mandatory Minimums and ‘Alcohol-Fuelled’ as an Aggravating Factor: Implications for NSW Criminal Law" (2014) 3(1) ''International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy'' 84.</ref> In 2017, the government of Victoria introduced a "two-strike" policy, with a minimum six-year jail sentence for repeat violent offenders.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/victorian-liberals-push-for-mandatory-sentences-for-repeat-violent-offenders-20170411-gvi75e.html|title=Victorian Liberals push for mandatory sentences for repeat violent offenders|first1=Allison |last1=Worrall |first2=Richard |last2=Willingham |date=April 11, 2017|website=The Age|access-date=May 4, 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180423033949/https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/victorian-liberals-push-for-mandatory-sentences-for-repeat-violent-offenders-20170411-gvi75e.html|archive-date=April 23, 2018}}</ref>
At the federal level, Australia also has legislation allowing mandatory prison sentences of between five and 25 years for people smuggling, in addition to a fine of up to $500,000, and forfeiture and destruction of the vessel or aircraft used in the offence.<ref name=controversy>{{cite web|title=NSW Parliamentary Research Service|url=http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/97ABEA3759EA2FE3CA257C6E0007D69E/$File/mandatory+sentencing+laws.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140809124051/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/97ABEA3759EA2FE3CA257C6E0007D69E/$File/mandatory+sentencing+laws.pdf|archive-date=August 9, 2014}}</ref> In early 2025, mandatory minimum penalties were introduced for numerous offences. These include minimums of one year for displaying a Nazi symbol (or performing a Nazi salute) in public, three years for terrorism financing, and six years for planning a terrorist attack.<ref>{{Cite web | url = https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8x98z0kvlo | title = Mandatory jail for Nazi salutes under new Australia laws | date = 6 Feb 2025 | author1 = Koh Ewe | access-date = 5 April 2026 | agency = [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url = https://www.dw.com/en/australias-hate-crime-law-gives-nazi-salutes-mandatory-jail/a-71520692 | title = Australia's hate crime law gives Nazi salutes mandatory jail | date = 6 February 2025 | agency = [[Deutsche Welle]] | author1 = Kate Hairsine | access-date = 5 April 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url = https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/06/australia/australia-hate-crime-mandatory-jail-time-intl-hnk | title = Australia introduces mandatory jail time for hate crimes following surge in antisemitism | date = 6 February 2025 | access-date = 5 April 2026 | author1 = Edward Szekeres | author2 = Hilary Whiteman | agency = [[CNN]]}}</ref> The [[Law Council of Australia]] criticised the capriciousness of these changes, noting that the [[Australian Labor Party | Labor government]] had contradicted its own national policy platform of opposing mandatory sentencing.<ref>{{Cite web | url = https://lawcouncil.au/media/media-releases/mandatory-sentencing-is-not-the-answer | title = Mandatory sentencing is not the answer | date = 6 February 2025 | access-date = 5 April 2026 | author1 = Kristen Connell | agency = [[Law Council of Australia]]}}</ref>
In New Zealand, [[Life imprisonment in New Zealand|life imprisonment]] is mandatory for murder. Murders with certain aggravating factors have a mandatory 17-year non-parole period, instead of the default 10 years for life imprisonment. Since 2002, judges have the ability to overrule mandatory sentences where they would be deemed "manifestly unjust", such as in cases involving [[Euthanasia|mercy killings]] and attempted suicide pacts.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Sentencing Act 2002: Monitoring the First Year |last1=Chhana |first1=Rajesh |last2=Spier |first2=Philip |last3=Roberts |first3=Susan |last4=Hurd |first4=Chris |date=March 2004 |url=http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2002/the-sentencing-act-2002-monitoring-the-first-year/publication |pages=13–14 |access-date=March 13, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160215184646/http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2002/the-sentencing-act-2002-monitoring-the-first-year/publication |archive-date=February 15, 2016 }}</ref> A three strikes law was introduced in 2010, though was repealed in 2022 over concerns including that the law was disproportionately affecting [[Māori people]] and had inconsistencies with New Zealand's Bill of Rights.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/11/new-zealand-government-introduces-bill-to-repeal-mandatory-sentencing-regime/ |title=New Zealand government introduces bill to repeal mandatory sentencing regime |last=Khandelwal |first=Kashish |date=11 November 2021 |work=[[Jurist (website)|Jurist]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220718035418/https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/11/new-zealand-government-introduces-bill-to-repeal-mandatory-sentencing-regime/ |archive-date=18 July 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.parliament.nz/mi/get-involved/topics/all-current-topics/repealing-three-strikes-sentencing/ |title=Repealing 'three strikes' sentencing |date=2021 |work=[[New Zealand Parliament]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250117130632/https://www.parliament.nz/mi/get-involved/topics/all-current-topics/repealing-three-strikes-sentencing/ |archive-date=17 January 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref> However, following the conservative victory at the [[2023 New Zealand general election]], the three strikes laws were reinstated in 2024, though with some relaxed conditions including implementing a "manifestly unjust" exception to allow some judicial discretion.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/three-strikes-law/#:~:text=The%20Government%20introduced%20legislation%20to,make%20the%20regime%20more%20workable. |title=Three strikes law |date=2024 |work=justice.govt.nz}}</ref>
===Asia=== In 1930, the city of [[Guangzhou]], [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|China]] enacted a mandatory death penalty for three-time offenders.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19301116&id=ZZAxAAAAIBAJ&pg=2394,5830971|title=Canton restaures death penalty to halt crime|date=November 16, 1930|work=St. Petersburg Times|access-date=September 11, 2017|agency=Associated Press|page=13}}</ref>
In India, murder committed by a convict serving a life sentence carries a mandatory death sentence. The mandatory death penalty provided in Section 31A of India Law is in the nature of minimum sentence in respect of repeat offenders of specified activities and for offences involving large quantities of specified categories of narcotic drugs. As of August 2005, [[aircraft hijacking]] also mandates use of the death penalty.<ref>[https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4150640.stm "India adopts tough hijack policy"] . [[BBC News]], August 14, 2005</ref>
===Middle East=== In Israel, the [[Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law]] mandates a death penalty for those found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or crimes against the Jewish people.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bazyler |first1=Michael|author-link=Michael Bazyler |last2=Scheppach |first2=Julia |title=The Strange and Curious History of the Law Used to Prosecute Adolf Eichmann |journal=Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review |date=2012 |volume=34 |issue=3 |pages=427 |url=https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol34/iss3/7/ |issn=0277-5417}}</ref>
== Analysis and commentary == Studies show people are deterred from crime more effectively by increasing the chances of their conviction rather than increasing the sentence if they are convicted.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://slate.com/culture/1999/12/does-crime-pay.html |title=Does Crime Pay? |last=Landsberg |first=Steven E. |date=9 December 1999 |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230530203912/https://slate.com/culture/1999/12/does-crime-pay.html |archive-date=30 May 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> In a hearing of the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary Committee]], Judge Paul G. Cassell, from the [[United States District Court for the District of Utah]], described mandatory sentencing as resulting in harsh sentencing and [[cruel and unusual punishment]], stating that the sentencing requirements punish defendants "more harshly for crimes that threaten potential violence than for crimes that conclude in actual violence to victims".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.uscourts.gov/News/NewsView/07-06-26/Mandatory_Minimum_Terms_Result_In_Harsh_Sentencing.aspx |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101208070157/http://www.uscourts.gov/News/NewsView/07-06-26/Mandatory_Minimum_Terms_Result_In_Harsh_Sentencing.aspx |url-status=dead |archive-date=December 8, 2010 |access-date=September 16, 2016 |title=Mandatory Minimum Terms Result In Harsh Sentencing |publisher=Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts |date=June 26, 2007 }}</ref> A hearing in 2009 heard testimony from the [[American Bar Association]] which stated that "Sentencing by mandatory minimums is the antithesis of rational sentencing policy".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.uscourts.gov/News/TheThirdBranch/10-06-01/Sentencing_Commission_Takes_New_Look_at_Mandatory_Minimums.aspx |title=Sentencing Commission Takes New Look at Mandatory Minimums |date=June 1, 2010 |work=Third Branch News |publisher=Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121011112132/http://www.uscourts.gov/News/TheThirdBranch/10-06-01/Sentencing_Commission_Takes_New_Look_at_Mandatory_Minimums.aspx |archive-date=October 11, 2012 }}</ref> In 2004, the association called for the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences, stating that "there is no need for mandatory minimum sentences in a guided sentencing system."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.uscourts.gov/News/TheThirdBranch/10-06-01/Sentencing_Commission_Takes_New_Look_at_Mandatory_Minimums.aspx |title=Sentencing Commission Takes New Look at Mandatory Minimums |date=July 2004 |work=Third Branch News |publisher=Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121011112132/http://www.uscourts.gov/News/TheThirdBranch/10-06-01/Sentencing_Commission_Takes_New_Look_at_Mandatory_Minimums.aspx |archive-date=October 11, 2012 }}</ref> A 1997 study by the [[RAND Corporation]] found that in the US, mandatory minimums for cocaine offenses were not cost-effective in regards to either cocaine consumption or drug crime.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6003.html | title=Are Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences Cost-Effective? | journal=RAND Corporation | date=1997 | access-date=March 29, 2016 | author=Caulkins, Jonathan | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160413175714/http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6003.html | archive-date=April 13, 2016 }}</ref> Mandatory sentenced are often considered to create cases where sentences are considered extremely disproportionate to the crimes committed.<ref>{{cite news |author= Allen Jones |title= Let nonviolent prisoners out: Building beds for the mentally ill is a fine goal, but why not reduce overcrowding first? |newspaper= Los Angeles Times |date= June 12, 2008 |url= http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-jones12-2008jun12,0,1263606.story |accessdate= December 4, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://lawcouncil.au/media/news/you-know-what-creates-unsafe-communities-mandatory-sentencing |title=You know what creates unsafe communities? Mandatory sentencing |last=McIntyre |first=Grer |date=4 January 2025 |work=[[Law Council of Australia]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://theconversation.com/mandatory-sentencing-leads-to-unjust-unfair-outcomes-it-doesnt-make-us-safe-52086 |title=Mandatory sentencing leads to unjust, unfair outcomes – it doesn’t make us safe |last=Tubex |first=Hilde |date=5 January 2016 |work=[[The Conversation (website)|The Conversation]] }}</ref>
The [[Law Council of Australia]] and the [[Australian Law Reform Commission]] both consider mandatory sentencing to incur significant social and economic costs and to increase incarceration, though without a corresponding deterrent of or reduction in crime. Mandatory sentencing also removes the incentive to plead guilty as there will be no reduction in sentence duration from doing so. Accordingly, people are more likely to contest charges, placing additional financial burden on the criminal justice system and increased workloads for courts.<ref name=lawcouncil>{{cite web |url=https://lawcouncil.au/publicassets/f370dcfc-bdd6-e611-80d2-005056be66b1/1405-Discussion-Paper-Mandatory-Sentencing-Discussion-Paper.pdf |title=Policy Discussion Paper on Mandatory Sentencing |date=2014 |work=[[Law Council of Australia]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240720061246/https://lawcouncil.au/publicassets/f370dcfc-bdd6-e611-80d2-005056be66b1/1405-Discussion-Paper-Mandatory-Sentencing-Discussion-Paper.pdf |archive-date=20 July 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=alrc>{{cite web |url=https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/final_report_133_amended1.pdf |title=Pathways to Justice—An Inquiry into the Incarceration Rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples |date=2017 |work=[[Australian Law Reform Commission]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241212232400/https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/final_report_133_amended1.pdf |pages=273–278 |archive-date=12 December 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref>
Some judges have expressed the opinion that mandatory minimum sentencing, especially in relation to alcohol-fueled violence, is not effective. In ''R v O'Connor'', the [[High Court of Australia]] gave the opinion that when an person is intoxicated, there will likely be a change in their personality and behaviour, which will then affect their self-control; that, while a person may commit an act which is voluntary and intentional, it is not something that they would have done in a sober state.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|17|1980|litigants=R v O’Connor |parallelcite=(1980) 146 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 64 |date=June 20, 1980 |courtname=auto |pinpoint=per [[Garfield Barwick|Barwick]] [[Chief Justice of Australia|CJ]] at 17}}.</ref> Intoxication is not a justification for criminal behaviour, but since an intoxicated person's decisions are less likely to be shaped by [[Rational choice theory (criminology)|rational assessment of consequences]] than those of a sober person, deterrence is likely to be less effective for intoxicated people. Mandatory sentencing is also considered to be completely ineffective at reducing [[crimes of passion]] that are not premeditated.<ref name=abcoz/>
Research indicates that mandatory minimum sentencing effectively shifts discretion from judges to the prosecutors. Prosecutors decide what charges to bring against a defendant, and they can "stack the deck", which involves over-charging a defendant to get them to plead guilty.<ref>{{cite web|title=Longitudinal Study of the Application of Measure 11 and Mandatory Minimums in Oregon|url=http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Measure_11_Analysis_Final.pdf?ga=t|publisher=Oregon Criminal Justice Commission|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121012103510/http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Measure_11_Analysis_Final.pdf?ga=t|archive-date=October 12, 2012}}</ref> Since prosecutors are part of the executive branch, and the judicial branch has almost no role in the sentencing, the checks and balances of the democratic system are removed, thus diluting the notion of [[separation of powers]].<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|40|2013|litigants=Magaming v The Queen |date=October 11, 2013 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> Opponents of mandatory sentencing argue that it is the proper role of a judge, not a prosecutor, to apply discretion given the particular facts of a case (e.g., whether a drug defendant was a kingpin or low-level participant, or whether [[sex offender registration]] is an appropriate measure for a given crime or individual). When prosecutors apply discretion, they tend to invoke sentencing disparities when choosing among a variety of statutes with different sentencing consequences.<ref>{{Citation |title=Fifteen years after the federal sentencing revolution: How mandatory minimums have undermined effective and just narcotics sentencing|last=Weinstein|first=Ian|date=Winter 2003|publisher=Georgetown University Law Center|id = {{ProQuest|230349906}}}}</ref> In addition to fairness arguments, some opponents believe that treatment is more cost-effective than long sentences. They also cite a survey indicating that the public now prefers judicial discretion to mandatory minimums.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.famm.org/|title=FAMM – Families Against Mandatory Minimums|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060420093700/http://www.famm.org/|archive-date=April 20, 2006}}</ref>
In 2015, a number of United States reformers, including the [[ACLU]], the [[Center for American Progress]], [[Families Against Mandatory Minimums]], [[Koch family foundations]], the [[Coalition for Public Safety]], and the [[John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation|MacArthur Foundation]], announced a bipartisan resolution to reform the criminal justice system and reduce mandatory sentencing laws. Their efforts were lauded by [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] who noted these reforms will improve rehabilitation and workforce opportunities for those who have served their sentences. In their arguments, they noted that mandatory sentencing is often too harsh of a punishment and cripples someone's livelihood for minor crimes.<ref name=dbeast>{{cite web| last =Mak| first =Tim| title =Koch Bros to Bankroll Prison Reform| work =The Daily Beast| date =January 13, 2015| url =http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/13/koch-bros-to-bankroll-prison-reform.html| url-status =live| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20160221075317/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/13/koch-bros-to-bankroll-prison-reform.html| archive-date =February 21, 2016}}</ref><ref name=wapos>{{cite news| last =Horwitz| first =Sari| title =Unlikely Allies| newspaper =Washington Post| date =August 15, 2015| url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/15/clemency-the-issue-that-obama-and-the-koch-brothers-actually-agree-on/| url-status =live| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20170913044313/http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/15/clemency-the-issue-that-obama-and-the-koch-brothers-actually-agree-on/| archive-date =September 13, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1020/Congress-s-big-bipartisan-success-that-might-be-just-beginning | title=Congress's big, bipartisan success that might be just beginning | work=Christian Science Monitor | date=October 20, 2015 | author=Gass Henry | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160301010458/http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1020/Congress-s-big-bipartisan-success-that-might-be-just-beginning | archive-date=March 1, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| last1 =Nelson| first1 =Colleen Mccain |last2=Fields |first2=Gary| title =Obama, Koch Brothers in Unlikely Alliance to Overhaul Criminal Justice| work =Wall Street Journal| date =July 16, 2015| url =https://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-koch-brothers-in-unlikely-alliance-to-overhaul-criminal-justice-1437090737| url-status =live| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20170216192938/https://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-koch-brothers-in-unlikely-alliance-to-overhaul-criminal-justice-1437090737| archive-date =February 16, 2017}}</ref> In 2019, then presidential candidate Joe Biden unveiled his criminal justice reform plan which would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences.<ref>{{cite web|title=Democratic candidate Joe Biden unveils criminal justice reform plan|date=July 23, 2019|url=https://nypost.com/2019/07/23/democratic-candidate-joe-biden-unveils-criminal-justice-reform-plan/|publisher=nypost}}</ref>
== See also ==
* {{annotated link|Fact bargaining}} * {{annotated link|Fair Sentencing Act}} * {{annotated link|Zero tolerance}}
==References== {{reflist}}
==Further reading== * [https://web.archive.org/web/20080229051047/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/71240/op-71240.pdf Boatwright v. State – Supreme Court of Florida] * [https://web.archive.org/web/20080229051055/http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-186-2004do.pdf State of Pennsylvania v. Shiffler] * [https://web.archive.org/web/20080229051047/http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3d00-2926.pdf Tronsoco v. State of Florida] * [https://web.archive.org/web/20080229051047/http://law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/88781/op-88781.pdf State of Florida v. Christian] * [http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/mandatory-death-penalty.cfm Mandatory Death Penalty: Death Penalty Worldwide] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160415024815/http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/mandatory-death-penalty.cfm |date=April 15, 2016 }}: Statistics of capital punishment for every death penalty country in the world as of 2016. * [https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1445-discussion-selected-section-844-offenses Discussion of Selected Section 844 Offenses] [[United States Department of Justice]] * [https://web.archive.org/web/20110607092617/http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=822 Trends in State Parole, 1990–2000]: Report comparing discretionary and mandatory releases to parole with the type of discharge from parole supervision. * [https://www.drugpolicyfacts.org/chapter/mandatory Mandatory Minimum Sentencing]: Information on Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in relation to drug use * [https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS21598 Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes] [[Congressional Research Service]] * [https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41412 Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: The 18 U.S.C. 924(c) Tack-On in Cases Involving Drugs or Violence] [[Congressional Research Service]]
[[Category:Crime]] [[Category:Crime prevention]] [[Category:Criminal justice]] [[Category:Sentencing (law)]] [[Category:History of drug control]]