Today, "the federal prison system is operating at 40 percent over capacity" (Mandatory Minimum Sentences 1). Many of these prisoners in the system are still imprisoned because of mandatory minimum sentences. Many of them committed non-violent crimes and are being punished longer than what the actual crime may deserve. In fact, some have even been wrongly accused or were only vaguely associated with a crime, but are being imprisoned for the mandatory minimum. The number of prisoners is increasing because of mandatory minimums, which is requiring more funding from the states. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, especially in situations like those mentioned above, has many flaws and consequences for the families of the defendants and the states. Though there are these serious issues, it should not be repealed completely. Instead, there need to be certain adjustments made according to what crimes and type of involvement with crimes require mandatory sentencing. The major issue associated with mandatory minimum sentencing is that it has increased imprisonment, which is an exponentially large expense to the states. According to the article, "Mandatory Minimum Sentences,  the author states, "Of the 197,000 prisoners in the United States in 2011, more than 94,000 “ nearly half “ were imprisoned for drug-related offenses.  (2) Not all drug crimes are the same. Most are harmless to anyone other than the one with the drugs and others largely associated with the drugs, such as possession of drugs and drug dealing. Many critics of mandatory minimums, portrayed in "Mandatory Minimum Sentences, argue that "hundreds of thousands of U.S. prisoners especially those convicted of drug related crimes, have harmed no one but themselves and do not deserve to be jailed alongside hardened criminals.  (2) The minimum sentencing for drug crimes is, in some cases, longer than what the actual crime deserves. Mandatory minimum sentences do not only affect drug related crimes, but also elderly prisoners who no longer pose a threat to society and prisoners who have been wrongly or unfairly accused of a crime. The unnecessary imprisonment that mandatory minimums are responsible for should be unacceptable. For instance, a criminal could have committed a crime earlier in his or her life and was sentenced to a mandatory minimum. Suppose the prisoner reaches his or her elderly years while serving the mandatory minimum. The elderly prisoner, despite whatever crime was committed, does not pose a major threat to society anymore. There is no longer as strong a reason to hold the prisoner in jail and the elderly prisoner more than likely has medical expenses which is also funded by taxpayers. "At the present time, Arizona has more than 2,000 inmates over 50 years old who will remain in custody well in their geriatric years, and many for life. These prisoners, well beyond their lawbreaking years, require special medical attention, expenses that must be borne by the taxpayers.  (Unjust 2) The elderly prisoners should at least be released on parole. In another situation, mandatory minimums have a serious effect on those who are wrongly accused of a crime. The concept of mandatory minimums takes away all hope for those who are wrongly or unfairly accused. If it is aware to everyone later that the defendant was indeed innocent, it will do no good because the defendant was sentenced