THE SIDE THAT ARGUES AGAINST MANDATORY SENTENCING OUTLINES SEVERAL ASPECTS OF DISCRETION USED IN TODAY'S SYSTEM THAT MANDATORY SENTENCING DOES NOT TOUCH. THESE INCLUDE THE VICTIM'S DISCRETION TO CALL THE POLICE, THE DISCRETION OF THE POLICE OFFICER AT THE SCENE, THE OFFICER'S COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, PROSECUTOR'S DISCRETION ON WHAT TO CHARGE, PLEA BARGAINING, THE JURY, AND THE WARDEN OF THE PRISON. MANDATORY SENTENCING REQUIRES THAT THE DEFENDANT BE SENTENCED BY WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON, AND THAT SENTENCE DETERMINED BY THE LEGISLATURE MAY BE TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE FOR A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. THIS SIDE SUGGESTS THAT THE SYSTEM SHOULD PREVENT FUTURE OFFENSES BY INDIVIDUALIZING YOUNG OFFENDERS AND TEACHING THEM TO COPE WITH SOCIETY. SECONDLY, THE SYSTEM SHOULD MAKE THE LEAST INTRUSION POSSIBLE INTO THE LIVES OF THE DEFENDANTS BECAUSE OF PUBLIC NEEDS. FINALLY, JUDGES SHOULD MONITOR WHAT IS DONE AFTER SENTENCING, WHEREAS MANDATORY SENTENCING STATES THAT WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IS NOT THE JUDGES' RESPONSIBILITY. IF CONVICTS ARE RELEASED EARLY, HEARINGS SHOULD BE HELD SO THAT JUDGES CAN HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT IS SAFE OR DANGEROUS TO RETURN PARTICULAR OFFENDERS TO SOCIETY. HOWEVER, THE OTHER SIDE FAVORS MANDATORY SENTENCING FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS OF SERIOUS CRIMES, AND CESSATION OF THE JUDGES' DISCRETIONARY ROLE WHEN THE SENTENCE IS IMPOSED. THIS SENTENCING WILL FORCE JUDGES TO IMPOSE SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT FOR SERIOUS CRIMES. THIS SIDE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH WHAT IS BEST FOR THE DEFENDANT. THIS SIDE ALSO BELIEVES THAT THE MANDATORY SYSTEM WILL EFFECT DETERRENCE BECAUSE DIFFERENT JUDGES WOULD IMPOSE THE SAME SENTENCE FOR THE SAME CRIME.