Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

How mandatory minimums helped drive mass incarceration

Mandatory minimums were supposed to help crack down on drug crime in the ‘80s. But they’ve had huge unintended consequences:

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 sentencing 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 proportionality. This situation is so absurd that it's sparked the formation of a reform coalition composed of the most unlikely of allies, including the Koch brothers, the NAACP, Newt Gingrich, the American Civil Liberties Union, Sen. 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 package passed in 2010 eliminated minimums for simple crack possession and dramatically ratcheted back the crack-powder sentencing disparity from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. And President Obama recently wielded the executive commutation power to pardon 46 people serving excessive mandatory terms for nonviolent drug offenses. But the US still has a long way to go to make sentencing fair.

More in Video

Video
What would J.R.R. Tolkien think of Palantir?What would J.R.R. Tolkien think of Palantir?
Play
Video

How The Lord of the Rings lore helps explain the mysterious tech company.

By Benjamin Stephen
America, Actually
The progressive plan to reclaim the working classThe progressive plan to reclaim the working class
Podcast
America, Actually

Progressive caucus chair Rep. Greg Casar on his movement’s new playbook.

By Astead Herndon
Video
The Department of Holy WarThe Department of Holy War
Play
Video

What Pete Hegseth’s fascination with the Crusades can tell us about the war in Iran.

By Nate Krieger
Video
Live Nation lost. Will anything change for ticket prices?Live Nation lost. Will anything change for ticket prices?
Play
Video

A jury ruled Live Nation and Ticketmaster a monopoly, but what that means for ticket prices is not so simple.

By Frank Posillico
Eating the Ocean
Why are states unleashing millions of these fish?Why are states unleashing millions of these fish?
Play
Eating the Ocean

America’s fishing paradox.

By Nate Krieger
Video
Why Americans can’t escape credit card debtWhy Americans can’t escape credit card debt
Play
Video

Credit card APRs are now as high as 20 percent.

By Frank Posillico