[rogue yam]

I'm no expert but it seems to me that the reason there are mandatory minimum sentences is because the public got tired of seeing criminals get minimal punishment and then repeatedly re-offend. The public then leaned on the legislators to do something about it and they passed laws imposing minimum sentences. Democracy in action. Since it is largely the same folks complaining about the harshness of minimum sentencing who supported the politicians who appointed the too-lenient judges in the first place, I say "tough darts!"

[Ruth C]

So true. Let's look at what it says...the guy's sentence 'could' have been 61 1/2 years, 55 of which was for 3 counts. That means the other 13 drug, gun and money laundering charges would have gotten him 5 1/2 years - 5.07 months per charge. THAT is why so many have fought for mandatory minimums.

Someone please explain to me how it is so bad for the children of a drug dealing gun toting thug to not have this guy for a father while they are growing up. Or how it's not better that the young police officers don't have to face his guns in 5 1/2 years?

[jrfaug06]

Exactly! If judges enforced the law the first time they got arrested there may not have been a third time.

Judges blaming congress. How stoopid.

John