I can say a couple of things. You're absolutely correct. In most cases the retreat from the use of mandatory minimums has been in respect of drug offences. Certainly in the U.S. I think that's been the case. There's a study by the Vera Institute from 2003 that looks at this across different jurisdictions, and it's primarily with respect to drug offences. In Australia, in the northern territory, I think it's largely in respect of drug offences as well. But that's the area in which mandatory minimums had been primarily imposed. Nevertheless, the issue of deterrence doesn't change for drug offences versus violent offences or firearms offences as far as the evidence goes. But yes, it is the case that it has primarily been in relation to drug offences, as far as I'm aware.
On November 20th, 2006. See this statement in context.