Kansas v. Hendricks

Full Answer Section

• Deterrence: Advocates contend that mandatory minimums send a clear message that certain offenses will be met with severe and predictable consequences, thereby deterring potential offenders. The certainty of punishment, rather than just its severity, is often cited as a key deterrent (National Institute of Justice, 2016, as cited in FAMM, n.d.).
• Public Safety and Incapacitation: By mandating fixed prison terms for specific crimes, mandatory sentencing ensures that dangerous offenders are removed from the community for a predetermined period, thus enhancing public safety through incapacitation. This is particularly appealing for crimes that evoke strong public fear, such as violent offenses or drug trafficking.
• Accountability and Transparency: Mandatory sentences can make the sentencing process more transparent by clearly outlining the consequences for certain crimes, making judges more accountable to legislative intent. It can also be seen as a response to public distrust of judicial leniency (IPRT, n.d.).
• Predictability: For prosecutors, defense attorneys, and offenders, mandatory sentences introduce a degree of predictability into the sentencing process, which can facilitate plea bargains and reduce uncertainty.

Argument for Judicial Discretion

Opponents of mandatory sentencing argue for the paramount importance of judicial discretion, asserting that it is essential for achieving individualized justice and preventing disproportionate punishments.

• Individualized Justice: The core argument for judicial discretion is that every criminal case is unique. A judge, having heard all the evidence, considered mitigating and aggravating factors, and observed the defendant, is best positioned to craft a sentence that is just and appropriate for the specific circumstances of the individual case (Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 2025). Mandatory sentences, being "one-size-fits-all," often fail to account for critical differences in culpability, motive, personal history, and potential for rehabilitation (FAMM, n.d.; IPRT, n.d.).
• Proportionality: Strict mandatory minimums can lead to sentences that are disproportionate to the crime committed, particularly for lower-level offenders or those who play minor roles in larger criminal enterprises. This can result in unjust outcomes and undermine the public's perception of fairness. As noted by White (2000), "sentences are often greatly disproportionate to the severity of the offense."
• Shifting Discretion to Prosecutors: Rather than eliminating discretion, mandatory sentencing often shifts it from judges to prosecutors. Prosecutors decide what charges to file, and these choices effectively determine the mandatory sentence an offender faces. This can lead to less transparent "negotiated justice" and potential for bias in charging decisions (FAMM, n.d.; IPRT, n.d.).
• Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent: Research often finds limited evidence that mandatory minimums significantly deter crime. Critics argue that deterrence relies on offenders being aware of specific penalties, which is often not the case, and that certainty of apprehension, rather than severity of sentence, is a stronger deterrent (FAMM, n.d.).
• Increased Incarceration and Costs: Mandatory sentencing policies often lead to increased incarceration rates, placing significant strain on prison systems and public budgets, without clear evidence of a corresponding reduction in crime. The resources spent on prolonged incarceration could potentially be better utilized in rehabilitation programs or community-based alternatives (FAMM, n.d.; IPRT, n.d.).
• Undermining Rehabilitation: By removing a judge's ability to consider rehabilitative efforts or personal growth, mandatory sentences can disincentivize offenders from engaging in meaningful change while incarcerated. It can also lead to longer sentences than necessary for public safety, pushing individuals past the point where they pose a significant danger.
• Ethical Concerns: Some argue that removing judicial discretion can lead to moral and ethical dilemmas for judges who are forced to impose sentences they believe are unjust or counterproductive. This can lead to a sense of injustice among offenders and even affect the willingness of witnesses or jurors to participate honestly in the justice system if they fear an unfair outcome (White, 2000).

References:

• FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums). (n.d.). The Case Against Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Retrieved from https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-Case-against-Mandatory-Minimum-Sentences.pdf (This serves as a secondary citation to sources like National Institute of Justice and Pew Charitable Trusts.)
• IPRT (Irish Penal Reform Trust). (n.d.). IPRT Position Paper 3: Mandatory Sentencing. Retrieved from https://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_3_-_Mandatory_Sentencing.pdf (This paper cites various academic and legal sources, including Tonry, which would be a secondary citation if referring to his original work).
• Victoria University of Wellington Law Review. (2025). Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: A Justice System that is No Longer Just?. Retrieved from https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/vuwlr/article/view/4917/4371

Sample Answer

Mandatory Sentencing Versus Judicial Discretion

The debate between mandatory sentencing and judicial discretion centers on who holds the power to determine the length and nature of criminal sentences: the legislative branch through predefined statutes, or the judicial branch through case-by-case evaluation. Both approaches aim to achieve justice and public safety, but they employ fundamentally different philosophies and often lead to contrasting outcomes.

Argument for Mandatory Sentencing

Proponents of mandatory sentencing argue that it is a necessary tool to ensure fairness, consistency, and deter crime.

• Consistency and Fairness: A primary argument is that mandatory sentences eliminate unwarranted disparities in sentencing. When judges have broad discretion, similar crimes committed by similar offenders can result in vastly different sentences across jurisdictions or even within the same courthouse. This can lead to a perception of unfairness and erode public trust in the justice system (Tonry, 2009, as cited in IPRT, n.d.). Mandatory sentences aim to ensure that "similarly situated offenders receive similar sentencing outcomes" (Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 2025).