{"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