In Canada, over two dozen offenses in the criminal code carry mandatory minimum sentences (MMS), including first and second degree murder, a series of firearm-related offenses, impaired driving and related offenses, high treason, and gambling offenses. A recent review of literature revealed skepticism in relation to these penalties. These laws have been subjected to 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. It is stated that mandatory sentences are simply too diverse to making sweeping assertions of their overall cost effectiveness. The sentences vary greatly in their gravity and in terms of the thresholds at which they are triggered. The utility of MMS depends on its marginal deterrent and incapacitative effects over existing sentencing policies. Mandatory sentencing was seen as contributing to unwarranted disparities. Recommendations were presented in the adoption of sentencing guidelines similar to the United States Federal system, bringing about predictable sentences, without the rigidity of mandatory minimum, allowing judges to depart from the guidelines when mitigating or aggravating circumstances dictate. References