Should DUIs have mandatory sentencing? As a group, we have decided that mandatory sentencing would be best for the defendants, judicial system, and the possible victims. We have come to this conclusion because mandatory sentencing acts as a deterrent against future crimes. Potential drivers know what the punishment will be with absolute certainty. There is no gamble, and no ability to get out of the sentence through lawyers and bias judges. It also prevents repeat offences; the driver knows the seriousness of the crime, they also know what will happen if they do repeat their actions. Mandatory sentencing will bring back a known legal system, which will restore the lost element of democratic faith in our justice system. (Rose, 2011) Judges will have less of an ability to press their own opinions and views upon the defendant. This would make sure that the defendant would not be obligated to fulfill a punishment that is significantly harsher than what would be deserved of the crime. Mandatory sentencing will make it possible to achieve a level of consistency through the entire country. (Rose, 2011) Judges will be unable to let offences slide, which only enables repeat offenders. However, it will also make sure that other factors like racism, gender, social status, and age would not be able to factor into the judges decision. Mandatory sentences are able to take into account repeat offenders, by making the punishment harsher each time the crime is committed. The “three strikes and you’re out” policy is an example; while it does not directly pertain to DUI sentencing, the principle behind it can be applied to mandatory sentencing for DUIs. (Rose, 2011) In other countries where mandatory sentencing is prevalent across all judicial fields, they have seen lower levels of car theft and burglary. In addition, the victims of the crimes felt better about the punishment and the convicted criminals showed more remorse for their actions. Mandatory sentencing will undoubtedly make the judicial system more efficient. It will do away with the need for costly and lengthy pre-sentencing reports. (Rose, 2011) However, there are strong arguments against mandatory sentencing. There is popular demand for a harsher legal system, which may lead to a harsher mandatory sentence. (Rose, 2011) In addition, judges are entrusted by the people and for the people, to review each case individually. Mandatory sentencing will take away the judges ability to do this. Each DUI case differs enormously from the last, details and circumstances of the defendant would not have the ability to become known. Factors such as the possibility to rehabilitate, and risks of reoffending would never have a chance to become part of the deciding factors in the punishment. Judges must be able to weigh all the complicated factors so they can carefully determine the proper punishment for the crime.(Rose, 2011) Mandatory sentencing is not necessarily the best option. Studies have shown that when the public is asked to calculate a sentence, their response closely matches the sentence of the judges. (Rose, 2011) If mandatory sentencing becomes part of our legal system, then the people may be concerned for the defendant. Jurors of such cases may acquit against evidence because the mandatory sentence is disproportionately harsher then the crime it’s self. This has happened throughout history for example, when the mandatory sentence for a crime such as theft was the death penalty. (Rose, 2011)