Minimum mandatory sentences are unjust.  In the United States, federal minimum sentences for narcotics-related offences have forced judges on countless occasions to deliver sentences of 20 year, 30 years, or even life imprisonment to offenders that were tangentially connected to the offense. Often, such offenders are low-income young adults that turn to drug sales for a month or two out of desperation. [1] Sometimes defendants find themselves entangled in drug busts because they are living with family members that are involved in the drug trade. [2] In a well-publicized case, Weldon Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling marijuana because he was also in possession of a firearm. [3] All criminals are not the same; there are significant differences in the level of threat that individuals pose to society, as well as the likelihood of rehabilitation. Rigid mandatory sentences are unjust because they inevitably lead to numerous cases of disproportionate punishment. These harsh punishments consequently have disastrous impacts on the individuals, as well as their family and community.  [1] “DeJarion Echols,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.  [2] “Hamedah Hasan,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.  [3] “Weldon Angelos,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.