This article seeks to understand the puzzle of how modern society has come to accept until nowadays some forms of political intervention in the judicial sentence. We focus specifically on flat punishment, which does not leave any option to the courts, and on minimum punishment. The first part explores the concept of minimum punishment and presents four types of punishment structures found in legislation. Building upon the distinction between foundations and supporting facts, the second part sets forth the ideas that founded these structures of punishment. In view of that, this article contributes to our understanding of the reasons why these political interventions have lasted so long ; why they are more likely to be maintained and reproduced than to be forsaken ; and also why it has been so hard to conceive these practices as an expression of authoritarian politics.