Extensive national research has shown that mandatory minimum sentences have failed to reduce crime and have instead driven mass incarceration, deepened racial disparities and undermined the fairness of the U.S. criminal legal system.
In 2014, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States, a study produced by the National Academies, examined the period from the 1920s through the early 1970s, when the U.S. incarceration rate quadrupled compared with previous decades. The study highlights that incarceration levels have reached a point where high imprisonment rates themselves generate social harm and injustice.
An article by the Felony Murder Elimination Project presents findings from The Growth of Incarceration in the United States on mandatory minimum sentences, demonstrating that they have been ineffective at reducing crime rates. Research shows that mandatory minimum sentences have instead been counterproductive, contributing to the persistent problem of mass incarceration in the United States.
Mandatory minimum sentences in the United States emerged during the “War on Drugs,” notably with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The Felony Murder Elimination Project explains that these laws were intended to prevent drug crimes and limit judicial discretion and expanded further in the 1980s and 1990s with stricter drug laws and “three strikes” policies.
The “three strikes” laws led to harsher sentence enhancements, including life imprisonment, even for additional minor offenses such as nonviolent felonies or low-level drug possession. These policies significantly increased the number of people serving extreme sentences.
The National Academies study shows that mandatory minimum sentences resulting from these laws have not reduced crime. Instead, they have increased incarceration rates, intensified racial disparities, produced unjust outcomes and restricted judicial discretion without improving public safety or deterring criminal behavior.
The Felony Murder Elimination Project reports that many experts and public officials are now calling for mandatory minimum sentences to be reformed or eliminated entirely.
The Felony Murder Elimination Project cites research from the University of Michigan finding that prosecutors are more likely to charge Black individuals with crimes carrying mandatory minimums. Another study found that Black and Latino defendants are charged with mandatory-minimum-eligible offenses more frequently, particularly in states with higher levels of racism and discrimination.
Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will noted, “African Americans are 13% of the nation’s population, but 37% of the prison population, and 1 in 3 African American men spends time incarcerated,” according to the Felony Murder Elimination Project article.
One federal judge has compared mandatory minimum sentences to a “sledgehammer” that prosecutors can use to pressure people into waiving their constitutional right to a jury trial. According to the Felony Murder Elimination Project, this dynamic has disrupted the constitutional balance among prosecutors, judges and defendants.
Mike Fox, writing for the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, “Mandatory minimum sentencing laws can expose defendants to draconian prison terms if convicted at trial.” His comment referenced the Hewitt v. United States decision by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, as cited by the Felony Murder Elimination Project.
Fox also highlighted the problem known as the “trial penalty,” which creates a coercive legal environment. As a result, even individuals who maintain their innocence may feel compelled to plead guilty rather than risk extreme sentences after trial, according to the Felony Murder Elimination Project.
The National Academies report concluded, “The dramatic increase in incarceration has failed to clearly yield large crime-reduction benefits for the nation.”
The report also found that the majority of incarcerated people are Black and Hispanic and that impoverished communities have been disproportionately affected by punitive penal practices. The study argues that policymakers should act to reduce the nation’s reliance on incarceration.
The Felony Murder Elimination Project article argues that eliminating mandatory minimum sentences would restore judicial discretion, reduce mass incarceration and lessen racial disparities by allowing sentences to be tailored to individual circumstances rather than imposed automatically.
The National Academies report outlines the broader societal and systemic benefits of shifting from mandatory punishment to individualized justice. Incarceration carries significant financial and social costs, and reducing prison populations while reinvesting in community safety, mental health care and substance use treatment is often more effective at reducing crime, according to the Felony Murder Elimination Project.
Both the Felony Murder Elimination Project article and the National Academies report conclude that reducing mandatory sentencing and adopting more proportionate punishment would support a transition toward public health and rehabilitative approaches to substance-related offenses, addressing root causes rather than simply punishing symptoms.