Donate Today!

May 27, 2010
10:50 AM

CONTACT: Constitution Project

Matthew Allee, (202) 580-6922 or

Constitution Project Committee Member Testifies Before the U.S. Sentencing Commission on Mandatory Minimums

Thomas W. Hillier, II, federal public defender in Washington State, urges Commission to endorse a reduction in the number of mandatory minimum sentencing laws

WASHINGTON - May 27 - Thomas W. Hillier, II, the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Washington and member of the Constitution Project's Sentencing Committee, will testify before the United States Sentencing Commission today that the number of federal mandatory minimum sentences should be dramatically reduced. The hearing is being held pursuant to a Congressional directive requiring the Commission to report to the House Judiciary Committee on federal mandatory minimum sentences. The Commission will hear from many relevant perspectives on the issue, including executive branch officials, sentencing practitioners, law enforcement officials, academics, policy analysts, and advocacy groups.  

Mr. Hillier will appear on behalf of the Constitution Project's Sentencing Committee, which concluded that mandatory minimums are at odds with a federal sentencing guidelines system that is designed to allow for a proper balance between consistency and individualization of sentences. In prepared testimony, Mr. Hillier stated that, in his opinion, the most troubling aspect of these sentences is the inappropriate skewing of the balance of power, which gives a disproportionate amount of power to the prosecutor. He observed that, in his experience, mandatory minimums create the perception of injustice by both the public and individual defendants and thus erode confidence in our criminal justice system, and that they are commonly threatened to induce pleas in situation in which the penalty would be unfair and unjustified based on the facts of the alleged crime. As a result, he testified, the truth-seeking function of our criminal justice system is threatened.  

Mr. Hillier's submitted testimony reads, in part:


"In its role as a neutral and expert sentencing authority, the [Sentencing] Commission should encourage positive change in the [Justice] Department's current charging policies.... The Constitution Project's Sentencing Committee recommends that 'criminal defendants should not be punished more severely than they deserve.' It is in keeping with that ideal that the Constitution Project hopes the Sentencing Commission will support legislative and policy changes that limit the use of mandatory minimums."

The Constitution Project's Sentencing Committee is a bipartisan and politically diverse group of policy experts, including current and former judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, scholars, and other sentencing experts. In 2006, the Committee issued two reports outlining principles for the design of and recommendations for the reform of criminal sentencing systems: Principles for the Design and Reform of Sentencing Systems: A Background Report and Recommendations for Federal Criminal Sentencing in a Post-Booker World.  

To view Mr. Hillier's submitted testimony in full, to go:   

To view Principles for the Design and Reform of Sentencing Systems: A Background Report, go to:  

To view Recommendations for Federal Criminal Sentencing in a Post-Booker World, go to: 

The Constitution Project is a politically independent think tank established in 1997 to promote and defend constitutional safeguards. More information about the Constitution Project is available at


Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...