By Katy Naples-Mitchell
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are state and federal provisions that require a minimum prison sentence for specific categories of crime, like drug-related offenses or violent crimes. District attorneys take these sentencing laws into consideration when deciding who gets charged with a crime, what charges that person will face, and whether to offer them a plea deal.
In practice, mandatory minimum sentencing laws drive guilty pleas and mass incarceration, while also contributing to the already-significant racial disparities in our legal system. This causes irreparable harm to individuals and their communities.
In Massachusetts, legislation passed in 2018 eliminated or reduced mandatory minimums for some low-level, non-violent drug offenses. Two former chief justices of state courts have advocated for the elimination of all mandatory minimum penalties to promote equity and fairness.
Yet, many mandatory sentences remain a steadfast fixture in our criminal legal system.
Our district attorneys in Massachusetts wield tremendous power to reform this system. This fall, we must elect district attorneys who will fight to reform mandatory minimums to create a more just criminal legal system for all people.
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws perpetuate guilty pleas and mass incarceration.
According to a recent study by Pew Research Center, nearly 90% of criminal cases nationwide ended in a guilty plea in 2022. Some people may say this indicates that the system is working and that guilty people are being held accountable. But the rarity of criminal trials means that defendants aren’t getting a chance to argue their innocence in court or to test the strength of the state’s case against them. Experts believe that a high percentage of people are pleading guilty — regardless of their culpability — and that mandatory minimum sentencing laws exacerbate that problem.
When faced with the prospect of serving a lengthy mandatory sentence, a person may be more inclined to plead guilty to a lesser offense to guarantee a less severe sentence and avoid a trial and the potential penalty of even more time in prison, whether or not they committed the offense.
This sentencing system chills our constitutional guarantee of a right to trial before a jury of our peers. It also contributes to our rising prison population, which has more than quadrupled in the last 50 years.
Mandatory minimums are a key contributor to the disproportionate incarceration of Black and Latino communities.
In the 1970s, politicians introduced mandatory minimum sentencing laws to address rising crime and to help prosecute the “war on drugs.” By 1995, all states and the federal government had mandatory minimum sentencing laws in place, and they continue to be in widespread use today.
These mandatory minimums disproportionately impact Back and Latino communities. A landmark 2020 study by Harvard Law School’s Criminal Justice Policy Program submitted to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that Black and Latino defendants are significantly more likely to be incarcerated and receive longer sentences when facing charges carrying mandatory minimums sentences, even relative to white people charged with offenses carrying mandatory minimum penalties.
For example, while white people use and sell drugs at relatively similar rates as Black and Latino people, there is a stark racial disparity among those serving sentences for drug offenses.
According to a 2023 survey of sentencing practices by the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, 51% of people serving sentences for drug offenses are Black or Latino, though those groups make up less than 20% of the state’s population, according to census data.
Another stark data point from that study: The number of Black and Latino people serving mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses is three times that of their white counterparts.
Mandatory minimums hinder people’s ability to integrate back into society.
While promoters of mandatory sentences often claim that these requirements reduce recidivism, longer prison time has actually been shown to increase the risk of future offenses.
One potential reason: Longer sentences make it more difficult for people to integrate back into society upon their release, since they have spent so long in the intentionally anti-social carceral system, separated from their community, friends, and family. In addition, imprisonment exposes people to harsh conditions including violence, isolation, medical neglect and mistreatment; interrupts employment; and adds other collateral consequences.
In other words, people often leave incarceration with new barriers to the employment, housing, and stability they need for a smooth integration back into their communities.
Here’s why your vote matters.
Because prosecutors choose whether to charge people with offenses that carry mandatory minimums, voters must push district attorneys to act with fairness and justice. And we must hold every DA in office accountable for their actions.
District attorneys also hold significant power in policy debates around reforming mandatory minimum sentencing and are very active lobbyists on criminal law. Due to the respect they hold as pillars of the criminal legal system, it’s critical to elect DAs who will fight to reform the practice of mandatory minimum sentencing.
Our district attorneys can press lawmakers to eliminate these unfair laws and not create new mandatory minimum penalties that drive defendants to give up their right to trial and exacerbate racial disparities.
This fall, we must vote with our values and demand that district attorneys in Massachusetts work to create a fairer criminal legal system for all.
The ACLU of Massachusetts — together with our network of partners — is dedicated to spreading the word about What a Difference a DA Makes. Join our Action Team to help out!
