What effect do "mandatory minimums" have on sentencing in criminal cases?

Mandatory minimums significantly influence sentencing by establishing a set minimum penalty for specific offenses, which restricts the ability of judges to exercise their discretion in determining appropriate sentences. This means that when a defendant is convicted of a crime that carries a mandatory minimum sentence, the court must impose at least that minimum penalty, regardless of the individual circumstances of the case or the defendant.

This practice is often aimed at ensuring uniformity and consistency in sentencing, particularly for serious offenses, allowing for harsher penalties that legislators believe would deter criminal activity. The intent behind mandatory minimums is to provide a baseline sentence that reflects societal standards for punishment for certain crimes, such as drug trafficking or violent crimes.

Judges may still have some discretion in cases involving mitigating or aggravating factors, but the presence of mandatory minimums generally limits the extent to which they can consider the nuances of a case when deciding on a sentence. This can lead to outcomes that may seem unjust in specific cases where mandatory minimums apply.