Perhaps not for all crimes, no. I think a judge having some discretion and common sense into sentencing is a good thing, but when it comes to violent or sexual crimes, or crimes that involve taking advantage of the vulnerable (elderly, disabled, children etc) then I think minimum sentencing is the only way to prevent judges from giving weak sentences that will only serve to embolden criminals who seek to commit crimes of this nature. There are obviously other serious offences that would warrant a minimum sentence being attached as well that I haven't mentioneh here.

Sorry if it wasn't clear that I didn't mean all crimes, such as low-level offences or first-timers of these offences (which this case which has sparked my comment was neither) but I did somewhat imply it at the end of my comment when I mentioned violent criminals and peadophiles.

As for guidelines, they exist already, but unfortunately judges are often too happy to give people "second chances" when the reality is that it's deserved and not for the judges to play fast-and-loose with who gets punished for doing something horrible and who doesn't.