MN commission hears public comments on proposal to eliminate one felony sentencing factor

Dec. 17—A Thursday public hearing on removing a factor in state sentencing guidelines for felons drew more than 30 speakers, including crime victims who worried the move would lessen punishment for offenders.

The public hearing, held at the Capitol with a remote-viewing option, centered on the proposed elimination of a half-point from the sentencing grid that would mean judges would no longer take into consideration whether the offender committed the crime while in custody, on probation or on supervised release.

The measure is being considered by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. The commission is made up of 11 members, some appointed by Gov. Tim Walz, who are judges, prosecutors, public defenders, members of the public and others. The victim representative, Brooke Morath, was present at Thursday's hearing. She had not yet been appointed by Walz for the earlier discussions on the issue.

The commission is expected to consider the changes at a Jan. 13 meeting. If adopted, those modifications will be implemented Aug. 1, unless the Legislature intervenes.

TWO SIDES

Those testifying Thursday ran the gamut of politicians, law enforcement, activists, victims of crime, offenders, public defenders and prosecutors.

Those in favor of doing away with the in-custody point cited concerns that the added point, which could result in a longer prison sentence, was unfairly affecting felons who desire to better themselves. Supporters say their data show that most of those who will be affected by the change are low-level felony offenders. Supporters also say the change would at least temporarily increase capacity in the state's prison system by freeing up more than 500 beds.

Those against dropping the factor questioned the timing of the proposed change when Minnesota is experiencing a rise in violent crime. They said that while low-level felony offers may be the majority, the change will affect the sentences of all offenders, having "a rippling effect" throughout the guidelines grid, said Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove.

"This is not the time for criminal justice gone wild," Limmer said, after citing numerous statistics from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension on increasing crime. "This is a time when we protect the public safety of our citizens."

However, Bill Ward, speaking for the Minnesota Board of Public Defenders, noted the opposing arguments sounded similar to those he heard in the 1990s when legislators were taking a tough-on-crime approach in regard to the crack cocaine epidemic. He urged the commission not to repeat the same mistakes out of fear.

"What we did here is, throughout the country, we enacted draconian laws to deal with these issues because we were afraid," Ward said. "We're experiencing basically a media frenzy relative to the increased violent crime, and there's no doubt that it's gone up, but that conversation really shouldn't be dictating this discussion."

VICTIM VOICES CALL FOR PROTECTION

Several victims of violent crime spoke, some of whom had been raped, others who experienced armed home invasions or carjackings recently.

Julie Wicklund, of Minneapolis, told about her experience.

"An armed gunman came into my home to rob and terrorize my family," she said. "I am certain that this individual has been brought in before and has not seen any consequences. How can a judge not take into account custody status? Doesn't their status tell you about their history?"

Lisa Walker, of Minneapolis, also was the victim of an armed home invasion, but spoke about being the sister of a felon who continued to drink and drive in spite of multiple intervention programs.

"I can tell you two things that ultimately worked for his sobriety: fear of steeper sentences and the successful completion of a two-year drug court program in another state," she said. "As awful and heart wrenching it was to admit, we felt the only thing that would protect society from his drinking and driving was incarceration."

Others spoke up about the damage a lighter sentence would do to the survivors of sex crimes.

Walker said every day her 20-year-old daughter who had a gun held to her head asks, "Are they out there? Will they hurt me?"

Those in favor of doing away with the in-custody point repeatedly pointed to data they said showed that incarceration does nothing to deter crime, while those opposed said having the offender locked up gave them immense peace of mind. Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell also said that judges would still have discretion to consider aggravating factors even if the change were approved.

WILL IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

One prosecutor from Carver County, Kevin Hill, said he ran the numbers in his county and found offenders who committed crimes while on probation would often continue to commit crimes.

"There's a statistically different level of people committing offenses that are already on probation," Hill said. "They have access to services that you and I, who are not on probation, wouldn't already have and they have an extra impetus to remain law abiding. I think that is a basis to justify treating those people differently."

Justin Terrell, executive director for the Minnesota Justice Research Center, pointed out that the custody point is currently in place during the uptick in crime.

"The custody point is a redundant and ineffective policy. It does not keep us safer," he said. "It's not about do we deserve to be punished, it's about do we deserve to punish people?"