Yup, that discussion is now raging (at least in academia, and a bit in politics) in the Netherlands, particularly in and around 2012 when there was a new law pr

Yup, that discussion is now raging (at least in academia, and a bit in politics) in the Netherlands, particularly in and around 2012 when there was a new law proposal for mandatory minimums. Judges all around the country were strongly opposed, despite them appreciating the issue of different judgements for different people. The law however is a lot more sensible. For one it's for repeat crimes, but only of a certain order of the first one. i.e. if the first crime carried a 10 year sentence, then a repeat crime would carry a mandatory minimum of at least half the full sentence on that crime. You wouldn't have the issue of three strikes out for example, because none of those crimes are large enough to fit the mandatory threshold. (Further, while marijuana is illegal in the Netherlands, normal use is never prosecuted anyway, which we call the 'gedoogbeleid', loosely 'tolerance policy'. i.e. it's technically illegal, but it's country-wide policy to ignore it. Like if a police officer catches you walking through a red light on a street that has no traffic for hours because of an accident further down the road.) Still I'm not a fan. Judges are imperfect but I feel they're less imperfect than mandatory minimums. At the end of the day, our judges are independent and highly trained. Further there are various instruments to ensure independence, like appeals or even rejecting the judge and replacing him or her with a different one. (right of substitution). It's definitely a tricky thing...