Mandatory minimum sentencing.

• Position: Debate

Some federal crimes carry lengthy minimum sentences. Should we end that policy?

YES

When Congress passed laws in the 1990s requiring federal judges to impose lengthy mandatory prison sentences, the idea was to improve public safety and send a strong signal to potential criminals. Unfortunately, this one-size-fits-all approach has been a great mistake.

One consequence of mandatory minimum sentences has been a dramatic growth in our federal prison population. We now spend about $6.4 billion a year on federal prisons--about a quarter of the Justice Department's entire budget.

Often, these sentences are unfair. Consider the case of Weldon Angelos, a 23-year-old with no adult criminal history who received a 55-year mandatory minimum sentence for selling a total of $350 worth of marijuana on three occasions while in possession of a gun. Angelos committed a crime and deserved to be punished. But 55 years? By the time he's released, he'll be nearly 80, and it will have cost American taxpayers $1.5 million to keep him locked up.

Some offenders deserve long sentences. As a former prosecutor, I know that behind our most serious crimes are victims who deserve to know that the criminals who violated them are being punished. But doing nothing to address our growing prison population means less money for the rest of the justice system, including law enforcement and victims' support programs.

We cannot afford to stay on this path. Judges are in a better position to determine an appropriate sentence on a case-by-case basis.

--SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

Democrat of Vermont, Chair of the Judiciary Committee

NO

Mandatory minimum sentences are an invaluable tool in America's criminal justice system. One reason the United States currently enjoys historically low crime rates...