As stated by Fannon, the purpose of this law is to " put away drug kingpins" (48). This law does work when it is actually applied to large drug dealers. The majority of laws like this one usually fail at accomplishing their goals. Laws like this one bring about many other questions about the efficiency of mandatory minimum sentences. .
Mandatory minimum sentences are imposed solely because of the amount of the drug in question. It is well established that the drug amount determination, for either the guideline sentence or the statutory penalty, is a sentencing factor rather than an element of the offence (Goodwin 74). An element of the offence is usually what an offender is caught doing, i.e. selling. Another factor that activates a mandatory sentence is whether the offender is considered high-level. The level of an offender is completely ambiguous. Although an offender might not have any previous criminal history, he or she could be placed in a high-level category because of the amount of a substance involved. In some cases, the amount of drugs does not even come into question. Cases like these often revolve around a conspiracy to commit the crime. In such cases, the individual with the least knowledge of a transaction is usually given the stiffest penalty. This happens because the defendant has no information to turn over to prosecutors in order to receive a lesser sentence.
Individuals involved in the criminal justice system often argue over the successfulness of applying mandatory minimum laws and whether they actually punish those perpetrators who are targeted. The vast majority says no. As stated by Fannon, " 45% of those convicted under the 650 Lifer Law are first-time offenders"(48). This is a large majority of offenders, with no prior criminal record, who will be spending the rest of their lives in jail. In addition, even those individuals whose cases are eventually over turned, have already wasted a number of years in prison cell.