Juries ultimately have the final say in conviction. Its well within their right to go not guilty for any reason.

Judges and lawyers absolutely hate it, but juries aren't there just as a logical check on laws as written and facts as presented. Juries are a check on the legal system and laws themselves.

Sure, but saying someone is not guilty when obviously they are but a 10 year prison sentence is way out of proportion for what they did, that’s stupid too right? It means we expect juries to lie, on purpose, to prevent ruining someone’s life. It forces juries to pick between two bad extremes.

These kinds of laws remove the opportunity for juries (or judges where I live) to eg say “6 months of community service” when it’s more appropriate.

If you look up the terms “no reasonable jury” and “judgment of acquittal,” you can learn more.

Right, judges can overrule any jury verdict, civil or criminal, except a criminal acquittal.

But that's not inconsistent with what GP said.

> Judges and lawyers absolutely hate it,

Well, defense lawyers love it, the only thing they hate is not being allowed to mention it to juries.

The minimum sentence had been recently enforced at that time because things were getting really out of hand with MDMA flooding the markets. Probably tons of deaths, adulterated compounds, and ruining people's brains.

I say ruining people's brains because, in the world of raves I was involved in, most customers were teens, and I knew quite a bit who kept taking it excessively for self-medication, eventually just to get through the day, and I would see the decline in their cognitive functions over time. It was really sad. I denied selling to those people because they scared me. But...I was selling nonetheless. So unaware of the consequences of my actions...

> What's the point of judges and juries etc if we make the law so aggressive that they hardly have a say anymore?

Minimum sentences don't impact the juries say, which doesn't extend to sentencing in the first place, at all.