Examining the Effects of Mandatory Minimums on Case Outcomes

• In Event: Racial Disparities in Prosecution and Sentencing: Body-worn Cameras, Time Dimension, and Mandatory Minimums

Abstract

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which impose fixed minimum penalties for certain offenses, have become a cornerstone of criminal justice policy in the United States. Mandatory minimums were originally designed to ensure uniformity and deter crime through predictably harsh punishments. In turn, these laws have also had profound effects on prosecutorial practices and judicial discretion. Due to the widespread influence of mandatory minimums on court processes, there is a need for empirical research that thoroughly examines how these laws shape case outcomes, such as convictions, charge reductions, and sentencing. Using a dataset of around 30,000 firearms-related cases in Maryland, this research considers how mandatory minimums may be leveraged in plea negotiations, how charge reductions may be influenced by the presence of these penalties, and whether sentencing patterns differ for defendants initially charged with a mandatory minimum offense. Findings from this study contribute to the empirical landscape of sentencing policies and prosecutorial discretion by exploring the role of mandatory minimums in shaping courtroom decision-making.

Authors

• Lydia Becker, University of Maryland, College Park

• Brian D. Johnson, University of Maryland