Mandatory sentencing is a hot-button issue that incites heated debate along the political spectrum. Opponents argue that it unfairly limits judicial discretion and prevents judges from considering mitigating factors on a case-by-case basis. Proponents argue that it ensures uniformity in sentencing and ultimately reduces crime. However, no matter the merits or disadvantages of mandatory sentencing, it is a reality in both the federal and Illinois criminal justice systems.
Illinois Supreme Court Bans Mandatory Minimums for Certain Juvenile Offenders
A mandatory sentence is a fixed penalty. What that typically means is that people convicted of certain crimes must be sentenced to a minimum number of years in prison. No judicial discretion is allowed in these cases. In many of these cases it did not matter whether the defendant was a repeat offender or a first-time juvenile offender — the punishment was the same. The defendant could not offer mitigating evidence, even though details about his childhood and the circumstances leading to commission of the crime might have swayed a judge to lessen the sentence (had the judge been allowed to, of course).
Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that this mandatory minimum for juvenile offenders violated the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. That ruling applied retroactively, meaning that those already serving life sentences could have those sentences revisited.
Severe mandatory sentences still exist, however. For example, the possible sentence of life without parole still stands for adults convicted of first-degree murder. In most cases the mandatory minimum sentence in these situations is 20 years, with a 45 year minimum for first-degree murders where a gun is used. Additionally, second-degree murder carries a minimum of 4 to 20 years imprisonment. Other violent crimes also impose mandatory minimum sentences, such as rape and aggravated assault.
Chicago Mayor Proposed New Mandatory Minimums for Gun Crimes
If Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had his way, mandatory minimum sentencing would be extended to certain gun crimes. A state law proposed last year would impose mandatory minimums for those convicted of unlawfully using firearms. Critics argue that this is costly legislation that would not reduce Chicago’s escalating gun violence, while proponents claim the law would significantly lessen violent crimes. While the bill has not become law, the issue might be revisited in the state legislature.
Federal Bill Seeks to Reduce Mandatory Minimums for Drug Crimes
Drug crimes often carry mandatory minimum sentences. For example, in 2006 Congress imposed mandatory minimums for those convicted of manufacturing or distributing illegal drugs in the United States. Lawmakers hoped to combat drug trafficking and deprive terrorists of a potential weapon. Now, however, Senator Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is leading the federal charge for the Smarter Sentencing Act, a bill that would reduce these sentences. Opponents argue that this is a national security issue, and that reducing the mandatory minimums would put the U.S. at risk.
Whatever happens with the state bill proposing new mandatory minimums or the federal bill proposing fewer mandatory minimums, the fact is that mandatory sentencing is a tough penalty. Once the sentence is imposed you are stuck — there is no getting out of it. That is why it is imperative to mount an aggressive defense as soon as you are charged with a crime that carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence. Our experienced Chicago, Illinois criminal defense attorneys can help with that. We will work relentlessly on your behalf, beginning when you contact us today.