Should Congress allow for sentences below the mandatory minimum?
Bill Summary
HR 1097 allows for the courts to impose a sentence below the minimum mandatory sentence. This would only be done if the court found sufficient evidence that the mandatory minimum is longer than necessary.
Sponsor:
Rep. Robert Scott (Democrat, Virginia, District 3)
View full bill text ➔
How do you feel?
One click sends your opinion
Oppose
Support
Opponents say
• “It is a core principle that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense. This policy affirms our responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency. This policy fully utilizes the tools Congress has given us. By definition, the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences.”
Source:
Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Proponents say
• "Attorney General Sessions' directive to all federal prosecutors to charge the most serious offenses, including mandatory minimums, ignores the fact that mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively and have been found to distort rational sentencing systems, discriminate against minorities, waste money, and often require a judge to impose sentences that violate common sense. To add insult to injury, studies have shown that mandatory minimum sentences fail to reduce crime. Our bill will give discretion back to federal judges, so that they can consider all the facts, issues, and circumstances before sentencing."
Source:
Rep. Robert Scott (Democrat, Virginia, District 3)
- The First Step Act, explained (VOX)
- Sessions Tells Prosecutors To Seek 'Most Serious' Charges, Stricter Sentences (NPR)
- Senate Moves Forward With Bipartisan Bill to Rein in Jeff Sessions (Rolling Stone)
- Paul, Leahy, Merkley, Scott, and Massie Lead Bipartisan, Bicameral Introduction of the Justice Safety Valve Act (Press Release)
