A mandatory minimum sentence is when a legislature removes the power of judges to impose anything less than a specified active term of incarceration, while leaving intact a judge’s power to impose the maximum penalty for that crime. Mandatory minimums are a legislative determination that judges cannot be trusted to impose a just sentence.

• Repealing mandatory minimums does not eliminate the maximum punishment. Repealing a mandatory minimum does not mean removing the option of the most serious possible punishment. It simply means the legislature returns discretion to judges to decide what punishment is appropriate, and that they do not always have to treat less-culpable offenders the exact same way as the very worst offenders. Nothing in this bill would prevent a person who is found guilty of raping a child from being sentenced to life in prison. Virginia has sentencing guidelines developed by the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, a legislature-enabled body that resides within the judicial branch as an agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

• Virginia’s mandatory minimum laws are rooted in moral panic and pseudoscience. In 2021, both the Virginia House of Delegates and Virginia Senate passed bills repealing mandatory minimums, understanding that Virginia’s decision to adopt mandatory minimum laws was never “based on any science or good policy,” but rather “purely on emotions and politics.” Moral panics arising out of the crack cocaine epidemic in the ’80s and the mythical “super predator” era of the ’90s, were fertile ground for new mandatory minimums, for the sole reason that politicians wanted to appear “tough on crime.” There was never any policy justification for them, and there never will be.

• Mandatory minimums eliminate judicial checks and balances, Virginia should let judges be judges. Checks and balances are an important foundation of our criminal justice system. The Commonwealth’s Attorney decides who to charge with a crime and what charges to bring. Judges decide what sentence to impose upon conviction. Their job is to make sure the “punishment fits the crime.” In doing so, they serve as a check against charging decisions by the Executive Branch. Mandatory minimums eliminate that check. Moreover, Judges are required to live in the jurisdiction where they sit on the bench. They are part of the community and understand the community and courthouse values. The same is true of juries, should a defendant elect jury sentencing. Mandatory minimums reflect a decision that community values, spoken through rulings of jurists and juries from that community, do not matter at all.

• Mandatory minimums force plea deals, undermining the entire justice system. At least 90% of criminal proceedings are resolved through plea agreement in Virginia. Mandatory minimums can rob defendants of the opportunity for due process by creating a Trial Penalty, violating one's fundamental right to a fair and just criminal legal process by allowing prosecutors to hold mandatory time over a defendant’s head–force trading innocence for guilt, and a lesser sentence through plea bargaining. Alternately mandatory minimum laws decrease convictions for the original charge. Plea bargaining allows defendants to opt to lesser offenses and potentially victim dissatisfaction.

• Mandatory minimums fuel incarceration while failing to reduce crime. Research shows mandatory minimums have no measurable impact on deterrence, create unwarranted racial disparities in sentencing, and waste resources that could otherwise be used to prevent crime.

The majority of states are rolling back their mandatory minimums with bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats across the country have shown that states can successfully reform their sentencing laws and reduce crime and incarceration. Over 30 states have reformed or repealed their mandatory minimum sentences in the past two decades while maintaining public safety and reducing crime, and with support from criminal justice reform advocates and groups that support crime victims alike.