One Size Doesn’t Fit All: The Case Against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in Washington State
Faculty Mentor
James Headly
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Start Date
May 2025
End Date
May 2025
Location
PUB 321
Primary Discipline of Presentation
Government
Abstract
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws in Washington State promise fairness — but often deliver the opposite. By locking judges into rigid punishment schemes, these laws have stripped the courtroom of its most essential tool: discretion. From stacked firearm enhancements to repeat DUI penalties, the system favors formula over context, sidelining individual circumstances in pursuit of uniformity. The result? A justice process that prioritizes speed over substance, where plea bargains are often chosen not out of guilt, but fear. This paper examines the deep cracks beneath the surface — how mandatory minimums disproportionately affect Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous defendants, how appellate courts remain handcuffed by precedent, and how even judges and defense attorneys feel cornered by the rules they're sworn to uphold. Drawing on real-world case law (State v. Broadaway, State v. Brown, State v. Houston-Sconiers), data from the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, and interviews with legal practitioners, the paper challenges the logic that harshness equals justice. It also explores reform efforts like House Bill 1282 and HB 2001 and proposes a new Discretionary Review Boards model to return nuance, equity, and humanity to Washington’s sentencing process.
Recommended Citation
Fliesen, Jenna L., "One Size Doesn’t Fit All: The Case Against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in Washington State" (2025). 2025 Symposium. 3.
https://dc.ewu.edu/srcw_2025/op_2025/o3_2025/3
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
One Size Doesn’t Fit All: The Case Against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in Washington State
PUB 321
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws in Washington State promise fairness — but often deliver the opposite. By locking judges into rigid punishment schemes, these laws have stripped the courtroom of its most essential tool: discretion. From stacked firearm enhancements to repeat DUI penalties, the system favors formula over context, sidelining individual circumstances in pursuit of uniformity. The result? A justice process that prioritizes speed over substance, where plea bargains are often chosen not out of guilt, but fear. This paper examines the deep cracks beneath the surface — how mandatory minimums disproportionately affect Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous defendants, how appellate courts remain handcuffed by precedent, and how even judges and defense attorneys feel cornered by the rules they're sworn to uphold. Drawing on real-world case law (State v. Broadaway, State v. Brown, State v. Houston-Sconiers), data from the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, and interviews with legal practitioners, the paper challenges the logic that harshness equals justice. It also explores reform efforts like House Bill 1282 and HB 2001 and proposes a new Discretionary Review Boards model to return nuance, equity, and humanity to Washington’s sentencing process.
