Mandatory sentencing refers to laws that require judges to impose specific, fixed sentences for certain crimes, leaving little room for individual discretion. Unlike discretionary sentencing, where a judge can consider mitigating factors like the defendant’s background, mandatory sentencing guidelines dictate a standard punishment that must be applied regardless of unique case details.
Table of Contents
Rationale for Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Mandatory minimum sentencing requires that a predetermined minimum term be imposed for certain crimes, regardless of individual case circumstances. This system is designed to ensure a uniform standard of punishment for serious offenses.
Here’s the idea behind it:
Consistency and Uniformity
Mandatory minimums are intended to eliminate variations in sentencing that can occur with discretionary judgments. By setting fixed minimum punishments, the law seeks to make sentences more predictable and ensure that similar crimes receive similar penalties across the board.
Deterrence of Criminal Behavior
Supporters believe that these laws act as a strong deterrent, discouraging individuals from committing serious offenses by guaranteeing harsh consequences. The idea is that fixed sentences may prevent potential criminals from taking the risk of engaging in illegal activity.
Protection of Public Safety
Mandatory minimum sentences are also intended to keep dangerous offenders off the streets for a set period. This approach reassures communities that those who commit serious crimes will face significant repercussions, contributing to overall public safety.
While mandatory minimum sentencing promotes consistency and deterrence, its rigid nature can sometimes overlook the nuances of individual cases.
California’s Use of Mandatory Minimum Sentences
In the 1980s, California introduced mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses. This policy was aimed at ensuring uniform punishment, but it resulted in mass incarcerations due to fixed sentencing regardless of individual case details.
As of January 2021, the state stopped imposing mandatory minimum sentences on non-violent drug crimes, giving judges more freedom to consider the specifics of each case.
California’s Three Strikes Laws
California’s Three Strikes Law, enacted in 1994, creates harsher penalties for individuals with prior convictions of “serious” or “violent” felonies. If someone is convicted of a new felony and has one or more prior offenses classified as strikes, sentencing becomes more severe. The law is meant to deter repeat offenders by significantly increasing penalties for those with qualifying criminal records.
What Qualifies as a Strike?
Certain felonies are labeled as strikes under this law, particularly those deemed “serious” or “violent.” These offenses encompass a range of crimes, from residential burglary and armed robbery to assault involving weapons, murder, and various sex crimes.
Crimes involving significant injury or arson could count as strikes. Each strike leads to a harsher penalty for future convictions, emphasizing the law’s intent to address severe criminal behavior.
The Impact of a First Strike
For individuals with a single strike prior, a new felony conviction triggers a much harsher consequence. The sentence for the new felony will be doubled, and the time served in prison is extended because these defendants are required to complete at least 80% of their sentence.
Facing Two or More Strikes
When a person has two or more prior strikes, sentencing becomes even more punitive. A new felony conviction – even if it isn’t a violent one – results in a minimum sentence of 25 years to life in prison. Unlike other cases where good behavior can reduce time served, parole eligibility under this situation only begins after serving the full 25 years.
If the new charge is relatively minor or the prior strikes are outdated, a judge may determine that applying the Three Strikes Law isn’t appropriate. However, these dismissals are incredibly infrequent, particularly for cases involving significant violence or harm.
How a Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Help Challenge Mandatory Sentences
When facing mandatory sentencing, a criminal defense lawyer can take several steps to lessen the possible penalties or find alternative outcomes.
Filing a Motion to Strike Prior Convictions
A defense attorney may seek to remove a strike conviction from consideration. This legal avenue is mainly used if the defendant’s recent behavior and level of offense do not align with the harshest form of punishment. Getting a prior strike thrown out can be the difference between a long prison term and a more moderate punishment that fits the new crime.
Arguing for Alternative Sentencing
If an attorney can show there are mitigating factors – like mental health struggles or strong family support – they may propose probation, treatment programs, or community service instead. By emphasizing how a defendant’s rehabilitation is more likely with a less rigid approach, the defense works toward a resolution that does not rely solely on strict guidelines.
Negotiating a Plea Agreement
A defendant might admit guilt to a lesser offense that does not carry a mandatory sentence and have the more serious charges dropped. This can result in a less harsh outcome than what mandatory sentencing would otherwise require.
Contact Our Criminal Defense Attorneys for a Free Consultation
Working with an experienced defense lawyer who understands how to deal with these harsh rules can make a big difference. At Blair Defense Criminal Lawyers, our San Diego criminal defense attorneys have over a decade of experience fighting for our clients’ rights. If you have any questions or need help, call us immediately by telephone at (619) 357-4977 or contact us today to schedule a free consultation.
