mind saying that it's right that tend to say that the minimum especially in a piece like this may not be a proper solution but it still at this point fifteen years and the way i read this record is that the charge was telegraphing bet she would have entered as a mirror sentence if she had the ability to do so she was constrain fight what is it we don't know about the defendant that should cause us to say that this nineteen year old who received a minimum it was an unfair sentencing because it as applied to years old medically transferred to adult court and gets the minimum the court can give him for attempted murder six to thirty gives him six but he has to give mandatory twenty five for the gun but he's going to get the same for being accountable for the streets safe we're trying to make sure that people who shouldn't be out in society are not in society and in order to assure people that we're really serious about this group reading and twenty minutes is do you want us to incontrovertibly but that's not the issue i'm asking you that's what i'm asking your primary asking you to real specifically in this case where the child clearly indicated that she would have gone away with it if she had the discretion to do that and she did it because she could not well even the fact that the police officer had to get stuck on the roof and rescued by the fire department doesn't make it violent came away from the police he had a gun he had narcotics he ran away from the police interesting constitutional are you really just looking for an amendment to say under this section where there was no violence there should have been another possible alternative but the fact is if you accept that house is legitimate then obviously you take the next step and that next step is right there it is constitutional for a nineteen year old to be sentenced with that lawmakers take away his or her discretion in sentencing but that is where this i mean this has been upheld for decades and decades and decades and that's you're asking us to take a pretty sweet if i could one clarify something for the record which i think is important it's my opinion of the trial judge's findings the sentencing was now that she rose romancing her inability to give a six year sentence in this case but she was saying was that in this case based upon the face this case the stage for a minimum of fifteen years which had been raised from six to fifteen rosie pretends it was a disagreement between the parties as to what the judge's feelings about the minimum were if that was whether that was the appropriate sentence in this case but regardless of that wrong thing that counts are never once mentioned in this discussion for you rose that the statute is presumed constitutional and must be  our constitutional that the article one section eleven of our say constitution authorizes the legislature to set appropriate sentencing ranges for judges to impose in that the judges shall then consider the appropriate sentence within a range and he offers nothing to say otherwise except for in a supreme court decision interpreting the constitution as you well know you are bound by the in the iowa supreme court decision is based on an entirely separate rule of law with a separate history and a separate background and has no bearing on this case in this where this occurred in numerous decisions has held about the state versus lile decision because the law has gone by the legislature of the official policy makers of the state of illinois decided that the the age of majority you know annoying is eighteen in there with it their age their rights change if you're under eighteen you are subject to a year old can receive the death penalty certainly in nineteen year olds can receive a fifteen year minimum sentence for a nonviolent offense at a fifty percent service right now but it is also consistent with the history of the only