Questions: Mandatory minimum sentences are arguably unethical because they: Have no incapacitate effect Result in disproportionately severe sentences Do not reflect the will of the majority Are not applied to all offenders convicted under such statutes

The answer is "Result in disproportionately severe sentences."

Mandatory minimum sentences do have an incapacitative effect because they ensure that offenders are removed from society for a set period. This option is not a strong argument against the ethics of mandatory minimums.

This is a well-documented criticism of mandatory minimum sentences. They often lead to sentences that are not proportionate to the crime committed, as judges have no discretion to consider mitigating factors. This can result in unfairly harsh penalties, particularly for non-violent offenses.

While this could be a point of contention, it is not the primary ethical argument against mandatory minimums. Public opinion can vary widely, and laws are not always a direct reflection of the majority's will.

This option suggests inconsistency in application, which can be an issue, but the primary ethical concern is the severity and inflexibility of the sentences themselves, rather than their inconsistent application.