Reasons cited in favor of minimum sentences include their impact on crime through deterrence and incapacitation of the serious offender, and their impact on sentencing disparity, plea bargaining, and respect for the law. Critics of minimum mandatory sentence argue that serious offenders are incapacitated without minimum sentences, that deterrence is not achieved, and that prison overcrowding forces corrections authorities to parole more dangerous offenders who have not received mandatory minimum sentences. In terms of their impact on sentencing disparity and plea bargaining, opponents maintain that elimination of judicial discretion results in unjust sentences, that mandatory minimums are applied disproportionately to minorities, and that mandatory minimums are costly and do not necessarily induce guilty pleas. The available research indicates that mandatory minimum sentences have resulted in an increased proportion of nonviolent drug offenders in prison and a decrease in incarcerated violent offenders, and in a greater use of court resources in responding to low-level drug offenders at the expense of higher level offenders. 34 notes and 23 references