{"id":85879,"date":"2018-12-16T13:19:44","date_gmt":"2018-12-16T18:19:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?p=85879"},"modified":"2019-11-05T15:55:33","modified_gmt":"2019-11-05T20:55:33","slug":"pennsylvania-sentencing-guidelines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/pennsylvania-sentencing-guidelines","title":{"rendered":"Pennsylvania’s Sentencing Guidelines: A Review and History"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t

\u201cThese mandatory minimum sentences are perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences . . . \u201c<\/p>\n

– U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Objective of Mandatory Minimums – A Double-Edged Sword<\/h2>\n

While it is unclear whether former Chief Justice Rehnquist was referring to all mandatory minimum sentences as a policy or simply a subset of them, there is little question that mandatory minimum sentences are a bit of a double-edged sword. They may look good on paper \u2013 ensuring consistent and rational sentencing policy throughout all courts, and promoting fairer and more uniform sentencing practices \u2013 but mandatory minimums, in reality, lead to some unintended, and unjust, results. This is clearly seen with Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines.<\/p>\n

\"Pennsylvania's

Pennsylvania’s Sentencing Guidelines<\/p><\/div>\n

Indeed, there is an inherent tension in the criminal justice policies behind mandatory minimum sentences. On the one hand, we do not want judges from different courts to give two people who committed the same crime vastly different sentences. A modicum of consistency in sentences from court to court is a good thing, flowing from the moral principle enshrined on the U.S. Supreme Court building: \u201cEqual Justice Under Law.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the other hand, we do not want such rigid sentencing formulas that a judge cannot exercise his or her own discretion to ensure that the punishment fits the crime based on each defendant\u2019s specific circumstances. Equal justice also means fairness for each person based on his or her individual situation.<\/p>\n

Therein lies the tension: uniformity versus individualized punishment. Those two competing goals are both important as a policy matter. That is where mandatory minimums come into play. In the aggregate, mandatory minimums try to incorporate both goals. They attempt to set some uniformity in sentencing based upon the type of crime, while also allowing judges to depart upward or downward from the recommended sentence based upon a defendant\u2019s individual circumstances. This can be seen in both the federal and Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines.<\/p>\n

The term \u201cmandatory minimum,\u201d however, expresses that there is a minimum<\/em> punishment for each crime. Stated differently, it creates a baseline, or floor, under which a sentence should not go. Thus, a minimum set too high could result in the kind of prison overcrowding we see in our prisons throughout the country.<\/p>\n

Pennsylvania\u2019s Mandatory Minimum Framework<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The Pennsylvania General Assembly created the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing<\/a> in 1978. The purpose of the Commission was to create a consistent and rational statewide sentencing policy that would increase sentencing severity for serious crimes and promote fairer and more uniform sentencing practices.<\/p>\n

The General Assembly directed the Commission to adopt sentencing guidelines that would be \u201cconsidered by the sentencing court in determining the appropriate sentence for defendants who plead guilty or nolo contendere to, or who were found guilty of, felonies and misdemeanors.\u201d Essentially, the guidelines were meant to find equality and fairness in sentencing such that each judge had a single reference to consult in sentencing individuals.<\/p>\n

The most common mandatory minimum sentences in Pennsylvania involve convictions for the following offenses:<\/p>\n