One of my fellow SLACE members brought this article to my attention, and it serves as a perfect follow-up to my post from last week.

This article addresses a Federal District Judge from the Eastern District of New York, Judge Gleeson’s take on mandatory minimum sentences. Judge Gleeson has taken to asserting his strong feelings against the use of mandatory minimum sentences in the federal plea-bargaining process. The excerpt from his recent opinion (found under the above hyperlink) is worth a read. Additionally, the firestorm of comments left on this article raise several interesting points.

First, one comment asserts that Judge Gleeson is acting outside of his Constitutionally given powers and is acting in direct opposition to the separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary. The commenter is correct in that one of the core principles behind our government is that we have three separate and “co-equal” branches. Each branch has specific duties as well as checks on the other two branches. Federal Prosecutors, as part of the Executive branch, have sole discretion regarding whether to charge a defendant and with what crime(s). However, as Judge Gleeson and some of the commenters on this article suggest, there is an ever-growing concern that Federal Prosecutors are utilizing mandatory minimums to force defendants to take a plea and forego a trial. Should we even be concerned with this potential conduct?

Second, the issue of mandatory minimums for non-violent drug crimes arises again. As one comment suggests, “The charge is drug dealing. It likely stands in for hundreds of crimes a year, including the beatings and murders of competitors. The defendant did not learn from prior punishments, perhaps cannot change. After several convictions, only incapacitation serves the purpose of the owner of the law, the public.” Is this how we should view these crimes and subsequently support mandatory minimums for this subset of crimes? Do defendants convicted of non-violent drug crimes deserve a mandatory minimum sentence now because they were simply caught this time? Does incapacitation, through incarceration, of a defendant truly create a law-abiding citizen following his/her release from prison?

Third, the undertone of several comments touch upon the role of the public. Many commentators suggest that it is the public that wants these steep mandatory minimum punishments. Is this true? Furthermore, does the public even really understand what a 10 year sentence for a drug crime really means for a person? One comment suggests that juries should serve as the guide for what “the public” believes. But, another comment suggests that Congress, due to its greater size, is a better sample to determine the interests of the public. Is Congress really a better gauge of public opinion than the actual people they supposedly represent?

I’m interested to know what other people think about Judge Gleeson’s comments, his approach to mandatory minimum sentences, and the ways in which prosecutors potentially use these as threats or leverage to force defendants to plead guilty and forego their right to trial. Many opponents of this view will argue that a defendant is knowingly and voluntarily deciding to plead and not go to trial. This view is also supported by decisions of the Supreme Court. But, precedent aside, is it true that when faced with a mandatory minimum punishment of 10 years in prison or a plea deal to 5 years in prison a defendant is truly making a voluntary decision to plead and not proceed to trial?