Anatomy of a New Mandatory Minimum

Ever wonder what inspires lawmakers to create rotten new mandatory minimum sentences?

If you think it's research, expert advice, and crime data, you'd be wrong.

One bad story -- one crime, one offender -- is enough to inspire a new, bad law.

This little article from the Rock Hill, South Carolina Herald explains everything that's wrong with this way of creating sentencing laws:

A bill recently filed by state Sen. Shane Martin, R-Spartanburg, addresses a real problem. But we're not convinced his proposal is the best solution.

Martin's bill would add five more crimes to the list defined as "most serious offenses." Once on the list, the offenses would be eligible for a life sentence in prison [under South Carolina's two-strikes and three-strikes laws].

Martin said the bill was motivated by a case in which an offender, Robert Odell Brown, with a long criminal record was charged with shooting a Spartanburg County deputy who was trying to arrest him. The deputy lost the sight in one eye as a result of the shooting.

Brown's previous offenses included convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill, possessing a stolen car and providing false information to a law enforcement officer. Martin contends that if Brown had been sentenced to prison for life, he could not have shot the deputy.

In this case, Martin probably is right. Brown's list of convictions seems serious enough to have put him away for life. ...

But two-strike, three-strike mandatory sentencing isn't necessarily appropriate in every situation. Judges ought to have the discretion to consider the different aspects of each case that comes before them without using a cookie-cutter approach to sentencing.

No two cases are exactly alike. And extenuating circumstances can affect which sentence is appropriate.

Under Martin's bill, the only one who could exercise such discretion would be the solicitor. This would increase the likelihood that solicitors, who are elected officials, would seek life sentences in high-profile cases but not in less visible cases. The fate of a defendant might depend on the amount of public outrage against him.

We understand the inclination to lock criminals up and throw away the key. But that is one reason our state prisons now are so overcrowded.

Some people deserve to spend their lives behind bars. But the system should be able to dole out appropriate punishments without resorting to one-size-fits-all mandatory sentencing.