What sort of mandatory penalties should we have?

The argument in favour of a widespread fixed penalty regime - adopting a primary rationale for punishment would facilitate a more coherent and exacting approach to sentencing - the central objections against fixed penalties are that they are too severe and lead to unfairness because they are unable to incorporate all the relevant sentencing variables - by adopting a utilitarian ethic as the primary rationale for punishment, these problems can be circumvented - no utilitarian justification for disproportionate punishment, and penalties should not exceed the seriousness of the offence - no foundation for most sentencing considerations - by disregarding irrelevant considerations, the remaining can be incorporated into a fixed penalty system - the way would then be open for a coherent sentencing law system in which criminal justice is governed by pre-determined rules and principles as opposed to the intuition of sentencers.