Is it time to end mandatory minimum sentences? Plenty of lawmakers think so.

By Hadley Robinson and Skyler Rodriguez

Mandatory minimums — or predetermined prison sentences based on a type of crime — have led to an enormous prison population in American.

A large portion of people behind bars are serving these type of sentences, often for non-violent crimes associated with drug dealing.

These sentencing laws mean judges can’t determine how long somebody should be in prison based on the specific circumstances of the case. If a person commits a specific crime associated with drugs, firearms or immigration, it immediately triggers a minimum sentence.

Here’s an example of how mandatory minimums laws can stack up and lead to lengthy prison terms:

The price tag of incarceration in America, new research showing long prison terms don’t deter people from committing crimes and increased attention on alternatives is leading lawmakers to want to reform sentencing. The Smarter Sentencing Act, a bill sponsored by 25 Senators on both sides of the aisle, is working it’s way through Congress now. It would reduce mandatory minimums for drug crimes and is supposed to focus resources on only the most violent offenders.

Congress can just look to the states to see what happens when sentencing laws change.

Michigan eliminated mandatory minimums in 2002. The results are substantial:

If the federal government can reduce these minimum sentences, they’re looking at huge cost savings. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Smarter Sentencing Act would save the Justice Department $4 billion by 2024.