1950s
Mandatory minimum sentences were not broadly used until the 1950s when public outcry over drugs led to the enactment of new mandatory sentences. In 1951, Sen. Hale Boggs (D-La.) championed new mandatory minimum sentences for narcotics offenses: two-to-five years for a first offense, five-to-10 for the second and 10-to-20 for the third, with no possibility of parole or probation after the first conviction. Known as the Boggs Act, these sentences were made even harsher in 1956, increasing penalties for many drug offenses to include a sentence of five-to-20 years for any first offense sale or smuggling conviction and the death penalty for sale of narcotics by an adult to a minor under 18.
The Senate recognized the controversial nature of such severe penalties without possibility of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. It was particularly concerned about first offenders, but they could think of no alternative way "to define the gravity of the crime and the assured penalty to follow,"4 so the mandatory minimums were enacted. The federal Boggs Acts were mimicked by "Little Boggs Acts" in the states, some specifying terms for as long as 10-to-40 years incarceration.
1960s
By the late 60s, the Boggs Act had created many of the same problems we see with today's mandatory minimum drug punishments. Mandatory minimums were criticized by Congress for treating casual violators as severely as they treat hardened criminals, raising qualms even with prosecutors, interfering with the judicial role of making individualized sentencing judgments, and, perhaps more importantly, producing no reduction in drug violations. As part of the 1970 Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act, Congress confessed error and repealed virtually all mandatory minimums for drug offenses, 5 citing the severity and inflexibility of the sentences.6
The repeal was controversial. Dr. Stanley F. Yolles, the director of the National Institute of Mental Health testified against mandatory minimums: "I feel that judges have to be free to deal with violators of drug laws as individuals, not as a class of criminals. In my field, treatment is always tailored to the individual's needs. I feel the same should be true in dealing under the law with addicts and drug abusers ... Many laws on the books don't allow for this distinction."
Rep. Albert Watson (D-S.C.) described these views as "an affront to every decent, law-abiding citizen in America" and called for Yolles's resignation because it was "too much to ask the American taxpayer to pay the salary of any individual who publicly espouses" such a position. Still, many other lawmakers praised the repeal, including Rep. George Bush (R-Texas), a conservative freshman who spoke on the House floor in support of the repeal bill: "Contrary to what one might imagine, however, this bill will result in better justice and more appropriate sentences. ... Federal judges are almost unanimously opposed to mandatory minimums, because they remove a great deal of the court's discretion. ... As a result [of repealing mandatory minimums], we will undoubtedly have more equitable action by the courts, with actually more convictions where they are called for, and fewer disproportionate sentences."7