Very briefly on denunciation, my number one point, which relates to things that have been said before, is that a lot can be done with the law as it exists. For instance, cop killers and people who kill crop-dusters wouldn't get away with things as the law presently stands. But with regard to denunciation, my point would be this. if you go through minimum sentences you may have a denunciation effect on a situation; however, the question is, what is it you want to denounce? Do you want to denounce killing people, or do you want to denounce a killer in particular circumstances?
If you're into mandatory or automatic mechanical justice, whatever denunciation effect you will have in denouncing a situation will eventually be lost. And when you're going to denounce particular and at times heinous offenders, if you impose a mandatory minimum, the effect of denouncing this particular person is lost. People will say he's just part of a minimum sentencing scheme. Basically, he is not denounced in these particular circumstances; I mean, he happens to fall under a mandatory sentencing scheme.
My point here is, what is it you want to denounce? Do you want to have one shot at denouncing the use of a firearm, or do you want to have a real repeated effect, denouncing people who use firearms to kill people? Every time a judge does it, the second thing is probably more important than the first one.