Mandatory minimum sentences are unjust

Mandatory minimum sentences, widely associated with the Rockefeller Drug Laws in New York, helped launch the mass incarceration era of the 1970s and 80s. While specific Rockefeller laws have been repealed, mandatory minimums are still a significant part of our criminal justice landscape. In a recent study, we estimated that, in 2019, half of people convicted of a felony in New York City were subject to a mandatory minimum prison sentence. With legislation now pending in Albany, New York has an opportunity to put this vestige of our ineffectively draconian sentencing laws in the rearview mirror.

Rolling back laws requiring inflexible minimum prison sentences is hardly a novel idea. By 2014, about 29 states — including New York — had incrementally stepped back from mandatory minimums, especially in drug cases. There are now multiple good reasons to eliminate them entirely.

Mandatory minimums contributed to our incarceration crisis — an almost fivefold increase in state and federal prison populations from 1980 to a peak of 1.6 million people in 2009.

But mass incarceration did not make communities safer. Incarcerating more people has had, at best, marginal effects on overall crime rates. By averaging results in 116 studies, researchers found that incarceration modestly increased recidivism. Another recent analysis projected that current prison lengths could be significantly reduced without compromising safety.

While not enhancing safety, mandatory minimums have had a negative impact on many communities by heightening racial disparities. Already more likely to be arrested and convicted, Black Americans are also more likely to be imprisoned on offenses subject to mandatory minimums.

Minimums also provide prosecutors with disproportionate power. During plea negotiations, prosecutors can wield the threat of a higher charge — one that incurs a mandatory sentence — to pressure those reluctant to accept a plea offer — including people who are innocent.

New legislation does away with mandatory minimums. It would return sentencing decisions to judges, allowing them to consider mitigating circumstances and apply sentences that promote community safety and support rehabilitation and successful reintegration.

What might this or similar legislation achieve? Our study of New York City data underscored three central themes.

First, mandatory minimums fail to produce predictable outcomes. Few New Yorkers accused of a felony — just 7% in 2019 — were later convicted of the top charge they were arrested on. Another 8% were convicted of a different felony charge, and 20% were convicted of a misdemeanor. Plea negotiations means that mandatory minimums do not produce a consistent up-front expectation of case outcomes.

Second, mandatory minimums disproportionately apply to Black New Yorkers. Just 24% of the city’s population, Black people accounted for 51% of 2019 felony arrests and 58% of those exposed to a mandatory minimum. After plea bargaining, Black people accounted for 53% of 2019 felony convictions, rising to 59% facing a mandatory minimum. When combined with Hispanics, 92% of those subject to a minimum at sentencing were Black or Brown.

Third, we examined several possible legislative solutions and found that only the full elimination of mandatory minimum sentences would result in significantly better outcomes than the status quo. For example, if legislators solely eliminated minimums for people convicted of nonviolent felonies, it would disproportionately benefit whites. Contrastingly, if legislators focused on prior criminal history and eliminated minimums for people without a prior felony conviction, it would impact all racial/ethnic groups similarly; yet the scale would be small, reaching only 26% of people currently facing a mandatory minimum at sentencing.

Endorsed by the Lippman Commission in 2017, doing away with all mandatory minimums is a reasonable step that could reduce mass incarceration while still maintaining the possibility of prison sentences. It would change how prosecutors and defense attorneys negotiate and enhance the role of judges.

Looking closer at New York’s 2009 Rockefeller drug law reform offers an instructive example. The reform did away with mandatory minimums for most drug felonies (and some property felonies), alongside authorizing judges to offer drug treatment even over the prosecutor’s objection. The reform led significantly fewer people to be incarcerated, narrowed racial disparities, and put more people into treatment, resulting in less recidivism and significant cost savings when compared to statistically similar people previously imprisoned.

A system unshackled by New York’s remaining mandatory minimums would have similar benefits. It would require expanded evidence-based sentencing options — such as mental health courts and restorative justice programming—shown to reduce recidivism among people charged with serious felonies. Overcoming these implementation challenges is worth tackling to fight the racial disparities and excessive punishments of the status quo.

Rempel is director of the Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Cissner is director of research writing at the Center for Justice Innovation.