This article addresses the question of why Canada still has mandatory minimum sentences despite inquiries by a number of commissions that suggest abolition. It suggests that politicians and judges alike not only promote mandatory minimum policies, but also speak about them in much the same way - as a way of fighting crime. Though the evidence is clear that mandatory minimum sentences are not an effective crime-control strategy, and actually disrupt the sensible operation of the justice system, it is apparent that the deterrence message they deliver is still functional for politicians and is rarely challenged by judges
