Although Congress intended mandatory sentences to target "king pins" and managers in drug distribution networks, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that only 5.5 percent of all federal crack cocaine defendants and 11 percent of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers. This is because the most culpable defendants are also the defendants who are in the best position to provide prosecutors with enough information to obtain sentence reductions - the only way to reduce a mandatory sentence. Low-level offenders, such as drug mules or street dealers, often end up serving longer sentences because they have little or no information to provide the government.

For the ultimate authority on mandatory minimums, visit FAMM, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

At least one of Bush's judicial picks, Judge Edward Prado of Texas who sailed through his confirmation hearing with a 97-0 vote for a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, has been a harsh critic of the laws.

The decision by the ABA follows Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's criticisms of the laws Saturday at the ABA Conference.

According to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), in a nutshell, here is the problem with mandatory minimums:

Mandatory minimum sentencing deprives judges of the ability to fashion sentences that suit the particular offense and offender. At great cost to taxpayers, mandatory minimums have forced judges to sentence thousands of first-time, non-violent drug offenders to unconscionably long prison terms. The Judicial Conferences of all 12 federal circuits have urged the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences, after concluding that they are unfair and ineffective. Commenting on a minor, first-time drug offender sentenced to life imprisonment, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has called mandatory drug sentencing “a good example of the law of unintended consequences.”

Unwarranted sentencing disparity is one consequence of this scheme that shifts sentencing discretion from judges to prosecutors. Such drug sentencing laws disproportionately affect minorities and have contributed greatly to the more than threefold increase in the U.S. prison population during the past decade. Numerous studies, including those by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission, indicate that mandatory minimum sentencing is not an effective instrument for deterring crime, and a RAND Corporation study found that drug treatment is seven times more cost-effective than mandatory minimum sentencing.