irst and second degree murder, a series of firearm-related offences, impaired driving and related offences, high treason, and gambling offences (Gabor and Crutcher 2001). In addition, over the last two years, Members of Parliament have introduced a number of private members' bills relating to such offences as residential break and enter, sexual assault and interference, as well as several additional firearms offences. In the United States, approximately 60 infractions carry mandatory penalties in the federal system alone (Gabor and Crutcher 2001).
             Some criticisms leveled at mandatory sentences
             A recent review of the scholarly literature conducted by this author revealed widespread skepticism in relation to these penalties. Most of this literature pertains to rather severe American legislation, such as some federal drug laws and the "Three Strikes" laws adopted first by California and, subsequently, by about one-half of all US states. As discussed below, these laws have been subject to fierce attacks on the basis of their questionable crime preventive benefits, fiscal and human costs, violation of proportionality in sentencing, disproportionate effects on minorities, and their encroachment upon judicial powers.
             Scholars and advocates at a colloquium held earlier this year at York University were virtually unanimous in their condemnation of these sentences. The scope and intensity of the arguments levelled against MMS in this country are illustrated by the position taken by the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) (Cote, Majury, and Sheehy 2001).
             NAWL supports abolition of mandatory minimum prison sentences because they are ineffective; they do not achieve deterrence nor do they highlight the seriousness of the offence; they are contrary to principles of fundamental justice and equality; they constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and lead to arbitrary imprisonment; they conflict with purposes and fundamental pr...