By Rieley McDonnell, Head Copy Editor

Mandatory minimums hurt the U.S. more than they help the country.

People who commit crimes do deserve punishment for their actions, but they deserve just punishment. When a mandatory minimum is enforced there is no room to decide a fair punishment. A judge is forced to impose a certain sentence even if they think it is too harsh, effectively eliminating judicial discretion when sentencing.

 Removing mandatory minimums does not remove severe punishment, it just ensures that when those large sentences are handed out that they are justified. If a judge is allowed to look holistically at the facts of a case, without the burden of a mandatory minimum, they are able to tailor the sentence to the individual circumstances. They are not forced to impose a sentence higher than they think is fitting. 

People might argue that mandatory minimums help reduce or prevent crime. However, Dr. Andrew Meyer, a research fellow with the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute, gave a testimony where he claimed that mandatory minimums have been empirically proven to not reduce crime and have been shown to be costly. 

He noted that mandatory minimums try to deter crime via large punishments. Meyer claims this style of incarceration does not work and that lengthy punishments have not reduced recidivism rates. The cost of mandatory minimums makes them less appealing as well.

The longer a person is in prison the more it costs the taxpayer. According to the Bureau of Prisons it costs, on average, over $43,000 a year to house a federal inmate in 2024. For every year a person is in jail is just tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars being wasted. 

Mandatory minimums hurt the people in prison who are serving unjust, lengthy sentences, judges who are limited in their discretion and the American taxpayer whose money is being wasted. The solution to this problem is giving judges a larger say in sentencing by getting rid of those mandatory minimums. The First Step Implementation Act of 2025 (FSIA) is one bill that is trying to do that work.

FSIA adjusts the safety valve for judges. A safety valve allows for judges to sentence nonviolent, low-level drug cases under the statutory mandatory minimum. The changes that would be made by FSIA are not attempting to change the law in regard to violent crimes or felonies, just those at a low-level who are judged to not require the mandatory minimum.

According to the United States Sentencing Commission, of the 10,215 who were convicted of a drug crime carrying a mandatory minimum in  2024  52.4% of people who were convicted were subjected to that minimum sentence. If the safety valve were opened more, if judges had increased discretion, more people would be able to have relief from the mandatory minimum sentence.

In the revision made by FSIA the court would have the ability to go under the mandatory minimum if they regard it is the just decision. By modifying the law in this way, more people would be eligible to get lower sentences which would reduce the prison population and save the taxpayer dollar. 

Passing FSIA would alleviate the burden that mandatory minimums have on society.