Sandy Heverly, left, executive director of Stop DUI; Katherine Avena, president of Community Coalition for Victims Rights; Sandy Sharp, executive director of Families of Murder Victims; and Peggy Haney of Stop DUI gather with others to oppose removal of mandatory minimum sentences for violent criminals. Photo by Clint Karlsen.

The possibility that Nevada lawmakers might do away with mandatory minimum prison sentences for violent offenders prompted a small protest Thursday.

Participants included Southern Nevada crime victim organizations and individuals who lost loved ones in acts of violence. About a dozen people carrying signs made a brief appearance in front of the Sawyer Building before taking their opposition inside to the Legislative Subcommittee to Study Sentencing and Pardons, and Parole and Probation.

"Our loved ones are dead," said Sandy Sharp, executive director of Families of Murder Victims. "We have to be the voice for them."

But legislators made no move during the hearing to do away with minimum or enhanced sentences and expressed support for victims of crime. Members met June 8 to draw up bills to present at the 2007 Legislature.

"I assure you there is not a member here who is not concerned about victims," said Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas. "No one is advocating that minimum sentences be done away with."

Horne, the chairman of the subcommittee, said he receives a lot of mail from inmates complaining about the length of their sentences.

Before he responds, he said, he checks the Department of Corrections' Web site for the facts about their crimes and sentences. He said he only wants to ensure that parole hearings for inmates are conducted fairly.

The protest was prompted by statements made by Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Rose and District Judges Stewart Bell and Nancy Saitta during the subcommittee's January meeting.

Rose said he was not against long sentences but opposed mandatory minimum sentences because they prevent the judge from tailoring the sentence to the crime.

Bell and Saitta testified that district judges should have some discretion in setting sentences.

Sharp, who has been active in working for victims' rights in Nevada and has lobbied for stiffer sentencing of violent offenders, opposes any time reductions or credit being given to felons serving life sentences without parole. Life in prison should mean life in prison, she said.

And although the families of the incarcerated may feel differently, she said, they can still have contact with their loved ones, whereas the families of those who have been murdered can't.

"Which minimum sentencing guideline will they want to get rid of?" asked Sharp, whose teenage son was murdered in 1992. "Let's just put it right out there."

And who will benefit, Sharp wanted to know -- the man who kills someone's grandmother or the person who murders a child? Those are not people who deserve leniency, said Sharp, who had waited more than six hours so that she could present her concerns to the legislative subcommittee.

Terry Hirst couldn't agree more. Hirst, who lives in Fairfax, Va., is on a driving vacation that took him to Jean. He turned on the radio and heard Sharp speaking about the protest. He decided he had to attend and add his voice to those opposing easing sentencing requirements for violent offenders. His interest was personal -- three years ago, his 39-year-old daughter, Simone, was murdered during a trip to Las Vegas.

"The pain is always there," Hirst said, adding that his daughter's death had devastated his family. "It never goes away."

Hirst, who is active in a victims' rights group in Virginia, doesn't believe in coincidences -- he said he heard the radio show because he was meant to be part of the protest.

"There's no excuse for murder," Hirst said. "And there's no reason for (criminals) not to pay a price. These are people, by and large, who by their own hands are not a part of society."