Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws Explained

Mandatory minimum sentences are sentences that a judge is required to impose for people convicted of certain offenses.  They haven’t always been around – as late as 1968, Minnesota law stated that there were no mandatory minimum sentences.  That changed the following year when Minnesota enacted a mandatory sentence for certain firearm offenses.  More soon followed. Initially these focused mostly on drug offenses and violent crimes, but in the years since their use has expanded.  But are these sentences really mandatory?  And what types of offenses do they apply to?

Why have mandatory minimum sentences?

There are many arguments both for and against mandatory minimum sentences.  Some of the arguments in favor are:

1. These sentences serve as a strong deterrent against serious crimes. When offenders are faced with long sentences, it is more likely that others will think twice before engaging in similar behavior.
2. These laws serve to create uniform sentences. Every person who commits an offense with a mandatory minimum will receive the same sentence, reducing the impact of factors such as race, socioeconomic status, background, etc.
3. By linking these sentences to serious crimes, society can be assured that violent individuals are behind bars and not able to continue to harm others.

Common arguments against these sentences include:

1. Mandatory sentences remove the ability of judges to exercise discretion in a given case. Therefore, the unique circumstances of an offense or an offender go unrecognized.
2. These sentences sometimes result in disproportionately harsh sentences.
3. Prison overcrowding becomes a serious issue if too many offenders are sent to prison rather than given a chance to succeed on probation.
4. Rather than reducing racial disparities, data shows that mandatory minimums tend to disproportionately impact minority communities.

Which crimes carry mandatory minimum sentences in Minnesota?

There are a wide variety of offenses that carry mandatory minimum sentences under Minnesota law.  This list is only some of the more commonly seen examples.

1. Driving While Impaired – a second conviction in 10 years has a mandatory 30 day sentence. A third conviction carries a mandatory 90 day sentence.  A fourth conviction within a ten year period triggers a 180 sentence.
2. Domestic Assault – a person convicted of domestic assault within ten years of a prior conviction for a “qualified domestic violence-related offense” is subject to a 20 day mandatory minimum. A third conviction within ten years incurs a 45 day mandatory minimum.  “Qualified domestic violence-related offense” includes assault, murder, criminal sexual conduct, violation of a restraining order, and several other types of offenses.
3. Serious controlled substance offenses carry a variety of mandatory sentencing provisions.
4. Many offenses involving weapons carry mandatory minimums. Most violent crime involving a weapon triggers a 1 to 3 year sentence, and violent crimes involving a firearm carry a 3 to 5 year sentence.
5. A separate provision establishes mandatory sentences for individuals with a lengthy record of violent crime. The statute is complex and not possible to summarize here, but in general the penalties become very severe.

Are Mandatory Minimums Actually Mandatory?

In short, no, at least not usually.  Most mandatory sentencing provisions also provide exceptions that permit the court to sentence a person to less than the mandatory minimum, usually on the condition that the person have specific terms of probation imposed.  These terms typically aim to reduce recidivism by treating a person’s underlying mental or chemical health issues to ensure they don’t reoffend.  The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines also permit a judge to deviate from the “normal” sentence for a given offense.

One particularly common example is the mandatory minimum for DWI offenses.  In 2006 the legislature modified the mandatory sentencing statute for DWI offenses.  For individuals who are participating in the ignition interlock program, a judge may sentence without regard to the mandatory minimum!  Many people use interlock to get their driving privileges restored, which then makes them eligible for a reduced sentence.  Although this has been in the law for nearly 20 years, it seems not all defense attorneys are using it to their client’s advantage.

Conclusion

Reforms to Minnesota’s sentencing laws have increased in recent years, giving judges more flexibility to sentence individuals to something other than the “mandatory minimum.”  However, these sentences are still typically the starting point for most plea negotiations.  These cases are therefore often the ones in which a skilled defense attorney can accomplish the most.  By being familiar with Minnesota law and the provisions that allow people to avoid mandatory sentences, we’re helping people every day to improve their lives.  If you’d like to discuss how we can help you, contact us anytime!