Mandatory Minimums, Maximum Consequences
On paper, mandatory minimum sentences make sense. They can even sound reasonable: a guaranteed baseline punishment for certain serious crimes. In practice, however, mandatory minimums in Pennsylvania often produce results that are anything but just.
Mandatory sentencing laws take power away from judges and place it in the hands of the legislature and prosecutors. By taking the power away from judges, these laws are rendering the consideration of nuances and circumstance irrelevant. Matching crime to punishment like a game of what fits best does not feel like justice, and it certainly does not allow any room for humanity in the law.
When Judges Can’t Judge
A judge’s job includes weighing facts, intent, history, community safety, fairness and much more. However, when a statute requires a fixed minimum sentence, that discretion suddenly disappears. The judge may believe, after taking everything into consideration, that a shorter sentence is appropriate; It doesn’t matter. If the law says five years, it’s five years. If it says life, it’s life. A judge’s job is erased by a jumble of words and phrases that didn’t even take the specific case at hand into consideration.
This rigidity assumes that every case within a category is the same. Given situational factors and individual differences, no two cases are truly alike. Yet, mandatory minimums treat them as if they are.
Because prosecutors decide which charges to file, or in other words, which mandatory penalties to trigger, they control the sentencing floor before a judge ever hears the case. That dynamic fundamentally alters the balance of power in the courtroom.
The Plea Bargain Problem
Mandatory minimums completely distort plea negotiations. When the risk of going to trial means facing a considerable mandatory sentence, many defendants plead guilty. Not because they are guilty of what’s charged, but because the alternative is too dangerous to risk. Imagine being innocent of a crime, yet forced to compromise your integrity and plead guilty because going to trial means being automatically sentenced to a certain number of years behind bars before a judge can hear you out.
This is not a level playing field. The prosecutor can threaten a charge carrying a severe mandatory penalty and then “offer” to reduce it in exchange for a plea. The defendant must decide whether to gamble on a jury or accept years in prison to avoid the possibility of even more. Justice should not hinge on a gamble.
Mandatory Sentences in Real Life
One of my clients was charged with a felony 1 count of Person Not to Possess a Firearm. He had a prior felony conviction. After a car accident, police recovered a firearm from the vehicle. The gun did not belong to him and had been left in his car by someone else without his knowledge.
Under Pennsylvania law, the mere presence of the gun in his vehicle (combined with his prior record) threatened him to years of incarceration if convicted. The law does not account for whether he knew the firearm was there or if he intended to possess it. The statutory structure creates pressure to accept a plea, even where significant factual defenses exist. A judge should be able to examine the nuances: knowledge, intent, credibility. Instead, the mandatory framework looms over the case from the jump, shaping every strategic decision.
Another client, a mother of three with no prior record and a positive reputation in her community, was convicted of transferring firearms to individuals prohibited from possessing them. She faced a mandatory sentence of five to ten years. Because there were two straw purchase charges, she ultimately received seven to fourteen years in prison.
One scenario involved a firearm she legally owned and stored in a locked safe in the back of her car. Her car was broken into, the gun was stolen, and it eventually got in the hands of someone she did not know and who was not permitted to possess a firearm.
The judge in her case did not have discretion to sentence her below the statutory minimum. Mitigating factors such as her lack of record, her family responsibilities, and her standing in the community could not reduce the five-to-ten-year minimum. On top of that, because she chose to exercise her constitutional right to a jury trial, she lost the benefit of any negotiated plea that might have avoided the mandatory term.
The prosecutor’s charging decision determined the sentencing framework. The legislature’s statute determined the minimum. The judge, who sat through the evidence and heard the testimony, was left with little room to tailor a just outcome.
Perhaps the starkest example of injustice created by mandatory minimum sentences is felony murder. In Pennsylvania, a conviction for felony murder carries a mandatory life sentence.
I represented a client who went into a store with another person to collect a debt. During the course of what became a robbery, the other individual accompanying my client unexpectedly produced a weapon and killed someone. My client had no weapon nor any knowledge that his companion intended to kill anyone. Yet, both men received life sentences.
The shooter and the unarmed accomplice, who should hold very different levels of moral culpability, were treated identically under the law. The judge had no authority to distinguish between them and no discretion to consider intent, foreseeability, or the possibility of rehabilitation. Life meant life.
Mandatory life sentences in felony murder cases eliminate individualized sentencing entirely and assumes that participation in a felony automatically equals equal blame for murder. That is a legal shortcut with irreversible human consequences.
Who Should Decide?
The legislature has an important role in defining crimes and setting sentencing ranges. But when it removes judicial discretion altogether, it replaces individualized justice with rigid uniformity. When prosecutors control which mandatory penalties are triggered, they wield an unfair amount of leverage over outcomes.
Judges are trained, experienced decision-makers. They preside over trials, hear mitigation evidence, review presentence reports, assess credibility and are in the best position to weigh the totality of circumstances. However, mandatory minimums strip them of that role.
No one is arguing that serious crimes should not carry serious consequences. The question is whether every defendant within a statutory category deserves the same minimum punishment, regardless of intent, history, or context. In my experience, the answer is no.
Justice requires nuance. It requires the ability to distinguish between a knowing gun trafficker and a negligent owner whose firearm was stolen. Between someone who poses an ongoing threat and someone who made a terrible, isolated mistake. When mandatory minimums dictate outcomes, we lose that nuance, as well as the ability to individually tailor punishment to culpability. Overall, we risk trading fairness for convenience.
It is of utmost importance to reconsider whether the power to impose life-altering sentences should rest primarily with charging statutes and prosecutorial discretion or with judges entrusted to evaluate the human being standing before them.
—Rebecca Langman, project manager for the firm, contributed to the preparation of this article.
Laurie Jubelirer is the owner of Jubelirer Law, and her law practice in Montgomery County is devoted to helping individuals facing criminal charges and violations of their civil rights. She is active in promoting criminal justice reform via writing and speaking, including appearances on podcasts and through her own podcast, “Voices of the System,” which recently launched in January 2026. She opened her law practice 13 years ago in 2013. Prior to opening the firm, she worked as a prosecutor in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and as a Deputy Attorney General in the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. She is a staunch advocate for numerous incarcerated clients and an active member of Women Owned Law; the Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and Montgomery Bar Associations; and the Louis D. Brandeis Law Society.
