Another reason why I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing...

[KingsGambit]

They don't give judges any leeway to exercise common sense. Here is one such case: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/25...ermit-problems

While I know ignorance of the law is not a legal defense, I think it's clear in this case the woman had no criminal intent and does not deserve three years in prison.

[Epoetker]

They don't give judges any leeway to exercise common sense.

Their rights have been taken away by the feds because of bad behavior by the judges in question. If enough judges are being bought by corrupt outsiders, mandatory minimums are the only way to ensure a minimum level of sentencing for crimes. That these minimums get applied to stupid gun control laws is a nasty side effect, but that's a problem in the laws themselves, not the minimum sentencing strictures.

Federalism can be a disease as well as a cure, and if enough judges either go after the righteous or release murderers and rapists in their own districts, it's not like their subjects will suddenly confine all crime to their jurisdiction of birth. Crime and criminals travel to new places whenever an old one gets wise to its game.

Here is one such case: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/25...ermit-problems

While I know ignorance of the law is not a legal defense, I think it's clear in this case the woman had no criminal intent and does not deserve three years in prison.

Probably not. If any of the judges or prosecutors had balls, sympathy, or native judgment, they would have found a legal way to keep her out of prison. Hell, if the arresting officers had any judgment, they would never have arrested her for this in the first place. They don't, so they won't. Now, if this angers you, why aren't you in power now and actively conspiring to ruin their careers and reputations for being such colossally incompetent screw-ups, in order to encourage the others?