Mandatory minimums were supposed to help crack down on drug crime in the 80s. But they've had huge unintended consequences.
10 charts that show the racism of US criminal justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InOsF5x1lZw
Senator Cory Booker on "caste system" criminal justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQMZGkMPDFU
Subscribe to our channel! http://goo.gl/0bsAjO
These statutes dictate specific prison terms for certain crimes deemed uniquely harmful to society. By design, they bar judges from using discretion during sentencing. Minimums have been around since America’s founding, but the most consequential ones were erected in the 1980s in response to the ravages of the inner-city drug trade. The idea was to establish uniformly stringent punishments to both deter drug offenses and lock away kingpins. And a central feature of this framework was the now infamous minimum sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine violations.
The US government created a 100-to-1 minimum sentence disparity between crack and powder cocaine.
In the US, crack consumption is tied to income, and income is tied to race. So this arbitrary sentencing disparity has forced courts to punish black Americans much more harshly than white Americans for basically the exact same crime. As a result, tens of thousands of young men, most of whom are black, have been snatched up by law enforcement on low-level drug offenses and thrown into prison for mandatory terms that make a mockery of any sense of proportionately. This situation is so absurd that its sparked the formation of a reform coalition composed of the most unlikely of allies, including the Koch brothers, the NAACP, Newt Gingrich, the ACLU, Senator Rand Paul, and the Obama White House.
Fortunately, policymakers have started injecting some common sense into the minimums regime. A landmark 2005 Supreme Court decision afforded federal judges some leeway to stray from dictated terms. A major federal criminal justice
