Repealing Delaware's Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentencing Laws

Delaware's Judicial Community

National Judicial Community

The Constitution Project’s Blue Ribbon Commission Sentencing Initiative

Delaware's Judicial Community

"Delaware’s general assembly has actually been a leader in sentence reform through the enactment of Truth in Sentencing and enabling legislation for sentencing guidelines which give the courts a continuum of punishments to impose....

Judges are provided guidelines or suggested sentences in all criminal cases.  Although discretion exists to not follow the guidelines, we generally do unless there is good reason not to.  When a judge does not follow the guidelines, he or she must publicly explain on the record why not.  Mandatory sentencing is not consistent with this approach because only the prosecutor may exercise discretion and he or she does not have to give any public explanation." [1]

"I am…puzzled by the thought that the General Assembly gives me discretion to determine whether a person convicted of first degree murder lives or dies but denies me the discretion to determine if an addict who possesses 5.1 grams of Methamphetamine really should spend 2 years in prison. " [2]

"Unfortunately, the strait jacket of mandatory minimum drug laws tends to relegate Delaware’ judges to mere data-entry clerks, by not allowing them to consider the multitude of individual circumstances of each defendant and each case, and to sentence individuals accordingly." [3]

"Under Delaware’s sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum drug laws are an unnecessary anomaly.  These laws make the detailed provisions in SENTAC’s Benchbook, and indeed the entire system of sentencing guidelines, irrelevant.  Mandatory drug laws require judges to hand down sentences of arbitrary length, based solely on the type and weight of the drug in question, whereas we should be allowing our judges to make use of SENTAC’s system of sentencing guidelines, to accurately tailor sentences to individuals. " [4]

Additional supporters of removing mandatory minimum drug sentences include:

National Judicial Community

"I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust… The legislative branch has the obligation to determine whether a policy is wise. It is a grave mistake to retain a policy just because a court finds it constitutional. Courts may conclude the legislature is permitted to choose long sentences, but that does not mean long sentences are wise or just…A court decision does not excuse the political branches or the public from the responsibility for unjust laws." [5]

"[More statutes containing mandatory minimum sentences are] not going to advance the cause of law enforcement in my opinion and it’s going to set back the course of fairness in sentencing… There has to be room for the unusual or the exceptional case.  " [6]

"[Many judges] simply believe that ultimately they become instruments of injustice."

"[Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes] are perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences."

"Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long." [7]

"We must remember we are not widgets or robots, but human beings.  Defendants should be sentenced within the spectrum of what most judges would consider fair and reasonable."*

"As a consequence of the mandatory sentences, we (judges) know that justice is      not always done… [Y]ou cannot dispense equal justice by playing a numbers game.  Judgment and discretion and common sense are essential."*

"This type of statute does not render justice.  It denies the judges of this court, and of all courts, the right to bring their conscience, experience, discretion and sense of what is just into the sentencing procedure, and in effect, makes a judge a computer, automatically imposing sentences without regard to what is right and just."

"Statutory mandatory minimum sentences create injustice because the sentence is determined without looking at the particular defendant…. It can make no difference whether he is a lifetime criminal or a first-time offender. Indeed, under this sledgehammer approach, it could make no difference if the day before making this one slip in an otherwise unblemished life the defendant had rescued 15 children from a burning building or had won the Congressional Medal of Honor while defending his country."*

"....I continue to believe that sentence of 10 years' imprisonment under the circumstances of this case is unconscionable and patently unjust….[the defendant] will be sacrificed on the altar of Congress' obsession with punishing crimes involving narcotics. This obsession is, in part, understandable, for narcotics pose a serious threat to the welfare of this country and its citizens. However, at the same time, mandatory minimum sentences – almost by definition – prevent the Court from passing judgment in a manner properly tailored to a defendant's particular circumstances."*

"It’s easy to run for office saying, 'I was tough on crime.'  No member of Congress has to look at an      individual or an individual’s family and see the unfairness of that sentence being imposed and the      devastating impact that it has on the family." [8]

"One day last week I had to sentence a peasant woman from West Africa to forty-six months in a drug case.  The result for her young children will undoubtedly be, as she suggested, devastating.  On the same day I sentenced a man to thirty years as a second drug offender—a heavy sentence mandated by the Guidelines and statue.  These two cases confirm my sense of frustration…with the 'war on drugs' that is being fought by the military, police, and courts rather than by our medical and social institutions." [9]

"Each state and federal government should repeal mandatory sentencing laws that unduly limit a judge's discretion to individualize sentences, so that the sentence in each case fairly reflects the gravity of the offense and the degree of culpability of the offender."

Additional supporters of eliminating mandatory minimum drug sentences include:

[1] Remarks on Mandatory Sentencing, Delaware Tech Terry Campus, Law Day Program, May 7, 1999.

[2] Letter to Charles S. McDowell, Esq., Delaware State Bar Association, written, January 13, 2004.

[3] Letter to Senator Vaughn, written, June 2, 2005.

[4] June 1, 2005, statement in support of House Bill 181.

[5] Speech at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting, August 9, 2003.

[6] Top Justice Blasts Sentencing Guide, Associated Press, September 22, 2003.

[7] Speech at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting, 2002.

[8] "Mandatory Sentencing," July 2, 2004, from Religion and Ethos Newsweekly, Episode no. 744.

[9] "The War on Drugs: a judge goes AWOL-Jack B. Weinstein address-Transcript." Harper’s Magazine, July 1993.

[10] "Criticizing Sentencing Rules, US Judge Resigns," The NY Times. September 30, 1990.

*These sources were taken from Families Against Mandatory Minimums website.