Weldon Angelos, a 28 year old music executive and father of two young children was convicted of selling small amounts of marijuana three times for a few hundred dollars each time. He was sentenced to 55 years in prison.

Angelos will serve what is essentially a life sentence for selling a small amount of pot.

This sentence is far longer than if he had been convicted of second degree murder, hijacking, kidnapping, rape or aggravated assault.

In the same courtroom on the same day, another defendant was convicted of bludgeoning an elderly woman to death with a log. He was sentenced to 25 years.

How did a relatively minor crime merit a sentence more than twice that of a vicious crime? Federal mandatory minimum sentences impose long prison terms for a small number of crimes, mostly drug offenses. The killing of the elderly woman was not covered by a mandatory sentence.

This excerpt is from Mandatory Minimums: Unjust and Unbiblical, an article by Pat Nolan of Justice Fellowship.  Nolan says there is a trend in our society toward harsher sentences--a positive development, I would say, when it comes to crimes like murder and sexual assault.  However, the legal establishment of "mandatory minimums" is upsetting the punishment-fits-the-crime principle that the Bible teaches, and is distorting justice in our country, according to Nolan.

I wonder:  Are mandatory minimums just affixed to the wrong crimes, or should they be done away with entirely?