The “tough on crime” mentality has motivated the various states and federal government to tighten their criminal laws for all offenses, violent or not. This was a conservative battle cry for many years. While this mentality is fundamentally flawed, it has scared, cajoled, and motivated the unwitting public into craving tougher, harsher penalties for offenders without mercy. The results are in, and the experiment is a bust.
For years, the “tough on crime” crowd yelled and screamed at the top of their lungs that the government was too soft on crime. Enter the minimum mandatory penalty. Next to building more prisons, the minimum mandatory penalty was supposed to be the coup de grâce to society’s ills. The overall result is anything but.
Minimum mandatory penalties are automatic penalties that, in most cases, cannot be bypassed and must be imposed without regard to mitigating circumstances. These are standard penalties. Off the record, judges despise minimum mandatory penalties because they take away the judge’s discretion; they strip the judge of the ability to be a judge and impose a just sentence that fits the crime.
This movement towards minimum mandatory sentences has evolved in the past fifty years. These penalties continue to remove the judges’ discretion and produce stringent, harsh, and vastly disproportionate sentences.[i] The prison populations have exploded as a result.[ii] The inequities caused by these minimum mandatories have resulted in massive ethnic and racial disparities in sentencing. It has also resulted in first-time offenders being walloped by a gigantic, inflexible sentence that almost certainly results in an unjust result.
This shifted the balance of power in the judicial branch. The unintended effect is that prosecutors now wield more power than the judges because of charging decisions. A sly prosecutor can now opt for a charge with a minimum mandatory penalty rather than a lesser offense. The charging decisions shape the course of that specific criminal case.
These harsh penalties gave society a false sense of security.[iii] Many people, including the lawmakers who passed these laws, mistakenly believed these penalties would make communities safer. Unfortunately, the data showed otherwise.[iv] Further, these mandatory sentences were not cost-effective.[v]
With certain minimum mandatories, the defendant is often stuck between a rock and a hard place. Being charged with a crime is scary enough. Still, the options become limited if the government’s evidence against the defendant is overwhelming, irrefutable, and straightforward because a trial might not be the best option.
In these instances, the case can easily be proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. At these times, the defendant must decide whether to proceed to trial anyway or enter a plea. It is an impossible choice to go to trial and most likely lose or plead, knowing that the sentence is already predetermined, and the odds of receiving it are great. Not a good place to be.
The rule of thumb in cases without minimum mandatory penalties where the government can almost assuredly prove its case is to plea and show that one accepts responsibility for one’s actions, which may make the court take mercy upon the defendant. Defendants, their families, and friends are often gobsmacked when they learn that there is nothing that the attorney can do to work around the minimum mandatory sentence.
It is not uncommon for the attorney to hear the following retorts when discussing this matter with a client or his family – -“But…. they’ve never been in trouble before.” “All they did was … and that is what they are getting sentenced to?” “How is that fair?” “I bet they would not be subjecting him to that kind of penalty if he were famous.” And so on.
Minimum mandatories are not fair. They are often unjust. Mandatory sentences are usually disproportionate to the defendant’s role in some of these offenses. For instance, being a drug mule and simply carrying narcotics across the border carries with it a mandatory minimum penalty of ten to life in federal court. The offender is getting ten years without some reason (that usually does not exist).
Most Americans go about their lives without giving the criminal justice system any thought whatsoever. Sometimes, people tune into some unique case on television that has some social appeal or involves a celebrity, but usually, criminal law does not impact most people until it does… and then they, without fail, cannot understand how unforgiving and unfair the sentencing is. In fact, they usually cannot understand how unjust and unfair the entire system can appear and be. Period.
Whether it is fair and just is a matter up for debate. Still, one thing is certain: people cannot comprehend the ramifications of minimum mandatory penalties until they somehow impact them. It is not uncommon for people to throw their hands up and storm out of attorneys’ offices when they learn that no amount of money can get around the minimum mandatory penalties. It is not uncommon for people to blame the attorneys, thinking they are deceiving them to simply make a couple of extra bucks. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the judge cannot get around minimum mandatory penalties and will tell you the same.
Expectation is a noun that means “the act or state of expecting.” It can also mean “anticipation” or “assurance.”[vi] Regarding criminal defense, people want assurances that everything will be alright or work out in their favor. The problem is that sometimes the best outcome for a case may be some outrageous minimum mandatory penalty, and that sucks.
This is why the choice of defense attorney matters in every case, trial, appeal, or post-conviction. The criminal defense attorney should get paid for their skill, ability, knowledge, and passion. Like everyone else, the criminal defense attorney does not work for free and should command a fee commensurate with their worth. Make no mistake, a good criminal defense attorney is worth their weight in gold and may make the difference in the ultimate outcome of your case.
Anthony Candela is the Trial Dog and a four-time Board-Certified criminal trial attorney. He opened the Candela Law Firm, P.A. in 2014 and exclusively handles criminal trials and appeals in Florida and federal court. He has been representing people charged with crimes for the past 25 years. He received his J.D. from Duquesne University School of Law in 2000 and his B.A. in Political Science from King’s College in 1996. As an expert in criminal law and procedure, he has tried over a hundred cases to verdict. He has been handling criminal matters since 1999. Since 2008, he has been certified and recertified by the Florida Bar in Criminal Trial three times. He has also argued several dozen appeals. He is admitted to the Middle District of Florida and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal in the federal system. #callcandela #candelalawfirm #thetrialdog @candelalawfirm @thetrialdog
THE CHOICE OF ATTORNEY MATTERS. IN A CLOSE CASE, YOU WANT EVERY ADVANTAGE YOU CAN GET. YOU WANT THE BEST YOU CAN AFFORD. If you are looking for representation in a criminal matter or a criminal appeal (either state or federal), we believe we can help you. Please contact http://www.candelalawfirm.com or http://www.callcandela.com or call Anthony Candela at (813) 417-3645 to discuss your case. Please do not wait. The longer you wait, the worse it could get without proper representation.
If you liked this article, please like it and share the blog. All Trial Dog’s blogs can be found on www.ihearyoubarking.com or in the blog section of www.candelalawfirm.com or www.callcandela.com. Please like and share. Thanks.
The purpose of this blog is purely education/information and should not be viewed as creating an attorney-client privilege between the reader and author.
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, then please feel free to leave me a comment below, and thank you for reading this blog article. Clicking the link, you can also check out the author at his profile on AVVO.com (Anthony Candela) or Google Candela Law Firm and leave a review. Thanks.
Image source: pexels.com
No. 24-03 Minimum Mandatory
[i] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/end-mandatory-minimums
[ii] “The Human Cost of Mandatory Minimums.” https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/human-cost-mandatory-minimums
[iii] Arguments against mandatory sentencing include: (1) sentences are often greatly disproportionate to the severity of the offense; (2) the focus on particular kinds of offenses has tended to have a major negative impact upon certain categories of offenders and particular social groups; (3) removing discretion from judges shifts it toward the police and prosecution; (4) the severity of punishment under mandatory sentencing may lead offenders to actively contest charges against them, leading to increased workloads for courts and creating major drains on legal aid services; (5) it may cause erosion of natural justice as part of the plea bargaining process; (6) punishment is not particularly effective as a general deterrent, or even as a deterrent for specific offenders; (7) putting people in prison is expensive; (8) there is little evidence that the policy reduces crime; (9) it does little if anything for victims; and (10) there are less expensive and more effective alternatives to prison. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/ten-arguments-against-mandatory-sentencing#:~:text=Arguments%20against%20mandatory%20sentencing%20include,3)%20removing%20discretion%20from%20judges
[iv] “End mandatory minimum sentences in nonviolent drug cases? https://www.pbs.org/video/sentencing-reform-1732213709/
[v] “Are Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences Cost-Effective?” https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6003.html
[vi] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expectations