Like almost everything the government does that&#x27;s stupid on its face, mandatory minimums were a reaction to a different problem.  Voters were angry because there were wide disparities in sentencing, and it seemed some judges were wont to give out light sentences no matter how heinous the crime.  It&#x27;s probably not unreasonable to say &quot;If you kill someone, you should serve <i>at least</i> this amount of time regardless of circumstances.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s also not unreasonable to think large disparities in sentencing are fundamentally unfair.  The amount of jail time you get is supposed to depend on what you <i>did</i> and not which judge presided over your sentencing.<p>But along the way mandatory minimums became a way for politicians to project the &quot;tough on crime&quot; image.  You&#x27;d have a news article about a guy who just got out of jail killing an eight year old in a botched drug deal, then the next day Senator Simpleton is there at a press conference announcing a new bill to add 25 years to everybody caught with a gun at a drug deal.<p>It&#x27;s virtually impossible for any politician to stand up at that time and say &quot;That seems like an awfully long sentence for being in possession of a firearm.&quot;