Final answer:
Mandatory sentencing laws may actually increase the use of plea bargaining as defendants seek to avoid stringent mandatory sentences. These laws have a mixed impact on crime rates and deterrence. The relationship between sentencing laws, plea bargaining, and trial rates is complex and influenced by multiple factors.
Step-by-step explanation:
Mandatory sentencing laws are designed to impose strict punishment on certain crimes without allowing significant judicial discretion. These laws aim to serve as a deterrent by setting high minimum penalties. However, rather than reducing the use of plea bargaining, these laws may actually increase it. Defendants, facing the prospect of a mandatory sentence if convicted at trial, may be more inclined to accept a plea deal for a lesser charge. Consequently, while mandatory sentences are intended to increase trial rates by deterring crime, the fear of harsh penalties can lead prosecutors and defendants to use plea bargaining more frequently to avoid the rigidity of mandatory sentences.
When discussing the efficacy of sentencing laws in reducing crime, results can be mixed. For example, longer sentences for gun crimes have been associated with a reduction in these offenses, yet some programs aimed at deterrence, like Scared Straight, have not proven effective. The complexities of the legal system and human behavior mean that the relationship between mandatory sentencing laws, plea bargaining, and trial rates is nuanced and subject to a variety of influences, including the attitudes of prosecutors and defendants as well as public perception and policy changes.