Minnesota lawmakers are starting to move toward eliminating cash bail for certain offenses.
When someone is arrested and charged with a crime like theft or drug possession, often they have to pay an amount decided by a judge to be released before their trial begins. The person gets their money back when they show up to court, but those who can’t afford to pay remain in jail.
The bill, authored by DFL Rep. Cedrick Frazier of New Hope, would limit the use of cash bail by the courts for misdemeanor offenses, allowing an offender to be released pre-trial without having to pay.
The legislation is meant to target inequities within the state’s criminal justice system, which disproportionately jails lower income people and people of color due to their inability to pay.
Opposition have pointed to the cash bail system as a way to keep the people safe by keeping offenders in jail, but proponents say the harm caused by the system far outweighs the public safety benefits.
Fixing the cash bail system
Frazier, a former Hennepin County public defender, has taken up the bill after Rep. Mohamud Noor of Minneapolis carried it in the past, calling it an important issue that needs reform after decades of conversations about the system’s issues.
“If cash bail is one of the ways that is offered for release, we know that disproportionately it’s poor folks, and then even more disproportionately it’s Black and Brown people who tend to be folks that are on the poorer side when they enter the criminal justice system, and they don’t have the resources to avail themselves when the cash bail option when it is presented,” Frazier said.
“If I’m a poor person and I’m charged with the same crime as someone else that has access to more resources than I do, that shouldn’t determine whether or not I get to go home that day or whether I miss my job, which could cause a domino effect on the rest of my life,” he said. “It shouldn’t be based on your bank account.”
The bill does include some exceptions like domestic violence, violating a protective order and driving while impaired.
According to a 2021 report by the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a nonprofit that pays cash bail and immigration bonds for those who can’t afford it, Black people make up 54% of individuals bailed out by the fund but only 6% of the state’s population. The average bail request from Black defendants was more than $78,000 — twice the average request from white defendants.
“We really have a situation here where we have a cost that’s put on freedom and we fundamentally have concerns with that,” said Freedom Fund Policy Director Cacje Henderson. “We think that this misdemeanor bail reform bill is a great start in addressing that issue.”
Other states have recently altered their cash bail systems. A new law eliminating cash bail altogether in Illinois was meant to go into effect in January before an Illinois Circuit Court judge ruled it unconstitutional, prompting the state’s Supreme Court to issue a stay on the law. New York passed several laws in 2019 limiting cash bail, but amended the law with some bail-eligible exceptions a year later and again in 2022 to give judges more discretion in deciding bail.
Fixing the cash bail system was listed as a priority by DFL lawmakers early in the legislative session, but the bill hasn’t yet been heard in the House Public Safety Committee since being introduced in January.
Frazier said that is not due to a lack of appetite for the bill, but instead a very full agenda by the DFL. Issues deemed more urgent by the majority like abortion, restoring the vote to felons and driver’s licenses for undocumented people have taken precedence so far.
“We’re waiting to ensure that we can set it up so that we can have this conversation in a way that is thoughtful and thorough,” he said
He said he’s working through amendments to add to the bill, and will have a better idea next week when the proposal will be heard.
Cash bail vs. public safety
Republican lawmakers have introduced two bills, one that would require it be recorded if a third-party pays someone’s bail and another that would prevent nonprofit organizations from paying people’s bail, known as the Bail Abatement Nonprofit Exclusion (BANE) Act.
DFL control of both chambers and the governor’s office makes it unlikely either bill will receive a hearing.
The latter appears to target the Freedom Fund, which was flooded with tens of millions of dollars in donations as people around the world watched the clashes between police and protesters following George Floyd’s murder by a then-Minneapolis police officer. The organization came under scrutiny after a few of the thousands of people bailed out went on to commit serious crimes after being released.
Republicans have argued the cash bail system helps keep the public safe by keeping offenders in jail, preventing them from committing new crimes after being released.
BANE Act author GOP Rep. Harry Niska of Ramsey declined to comment through his legislative aide.
Henderson said she hopes the Freedom Fund put themselves out of business as well — not through the restrictions proposed by Republican lawmakers but by fixing the root causes of the system as it exists.
“Instead of just minimally addressing the problem by requiring people to pay high bails be free, we would rather see a proposal put forward to address the systemic reasons for why people are in our justice system in the first place,” she said.
Going forward, Henderson said she would like to see lawmakers ultimately address the entire cash bail system, which lacks support for people going through the criminal justice system who don’t have the ability to pay. That could include legislation that would build on the misdemeanor bill by including felonies as well, with some exceptions for violent offenders charged with crimes like domestic violence and sexual assault to keep those victims safe.
The Freedom Fund is also working on a data transparency bill that would mandate counties to report pre-trial data to the Legislature on an annual basis. Some Republicans have expressed interest in this information, which would help dispel the mischaracterization between the relationship of cash bail and public safety, she said.
“Our opposition is often saying having a cash bail system is what keeps people safe, without addressing those root causes,” she said. “We believe that having consistent and transparent information about the condition of people sitting in jail pretrial is one of the steps that we can take in addressing the harms of our cash bail system.”
Wow.
Car makers are at fault for car jackings. Guns are at fault for gun crimes. Catch and release prosecuting by Choi/Moriarity. Totem Town and Glenn Lake shut down. St Paul high schools now a disfunctional dystopia. Now reduced bail for certain perps. Back on the street and not reporting for hearings.
Just wow.
Certain perps who are charged with misdemeanors. Correct me if I’m wrong, but carjacking is a felony, as are most crimes involving a gun.
In your race to be the first commenter, you must have neglected to read the story.
All of the things you just named are felonies. This applies to misdemeanors. The real question is, do we think public safety is served by allowing the wealthy to pay their way out of prison even when accused of very serious crimes while poor people who are accused of even the most minor offenses may be forced to spend months or years behind bars?
Poor is poor! Poor white people have a hard time getting bail money just like poor black people do. This has nothing to do with race! I am all for not holding low level drug offenses and some non violent crimes in jail, awaiting trial. My problem is with a car jacking criminal pleading to a lesser charge and getting out without bail. Repeat offenders should not qualify for no bail, no matter the crime. Again, if you use a gun while committing any crime, you go to jail and stay there until your trial, especially if not the first offense.
Correct, poor white people and poor black people face similar issues. However, due to America’s particular history black people are much more likely to be poor in the first place. That is why this is an issue of racial as well as economic equality. As for the issue of pleading to lower charges, that has nothing to do with bail. Bail would be assessed based on the charge the person is arraigned for, in this case car jacking. If they received bail, they’d pay or wait until trial or plead out after waiting. Bail is never paid after you make a plea agreement, it’s always before that at arraignment.
Harry, you’re right people plead to lesser crimes to get out of jail. My problem is how quick the prosecution is to clear the docket and accept the plea and get the person back on the street. Bail, especially a high bail, keeps criminals off the street. Minnesota is a state that is getting worse about punishing crime with high bail and actual jail time. That is for all races.
Joe there’s a few things to remember here. First, at least on paper, people in America are considered innocent until a trial or plea has proven them guilty. You are assuming that anyone arrested and charged for a crime is guilty by saying bail that locks them up is “keeping a criminal off the street.” Second, as I said, bail does not keep criminals off the street, it keeps POOR people charged with any crime of the street. Even relatively low bail may be far too high for a poor person accused of a minor crime to afford, while high bail can be no issue for a wealthier person accused of a worse crime to afford. Third, the evidence does not support your claim that cash bail reform will lead to more people reoffending between their arrest and their trial while back on the street. A statistical analysis of cities that adopted bail reform found no correlation between reforms and greater rates of rearrest for those let out on bail. I linked that study below:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/cash-bail-reform-is-not-a-threat-to-public-safety/#:~:text=The%20facts%20are%20clear%3A%20In,reform%20was%20passed%20than%20before.&text=Put%20simply%2C%20releasing%20more%20people,led%20to%20higher%20crime%20rates.
A problem that is often overlooked is that many lower level offenders just don’t appear for their court hearing and then often times they end up doing something putting themselves at higher risk in terms of interactions with police or others. I agree the bail system makes it easier for the well to do, but bail amounts in MN do tend to be lower and bond companies help with it. It would help if there were peer supports or case managers who check in on higher risk offenders that qualify for bail. What policy makers often overlook is that some do not want to participate in services and have significant issues that need to be addressed so how do you lower risk while court is pending.
This is actually not an issue based on evidence from places that have tried cash bail reform. In cities that have passed cash bail reform, there was no increase in the rate of pre-trial arrest.
Source: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/cash-bail-reform-is-not-a-threat-to-public-safety/
High bail amounts for low level offenses are the modern equivalent of Debtors’ Prisons. For cases that require cash bail, it should based on a sliding scale based on the person’s prior year tax return. Other countries use sliding scale fines. Doing otherwise creates even more lenient treatment for the wealthy breaker. For people with a record of felony violence of who have violated prior terms of bail, they should be afforded bail at any price. Electronic monitoring and home detention are alternatives that should be part of any reform package, as should be reporting of violating the terms of bail, with violations analyzed by reports.
The assumption underlying the argument for no bail is misleading. What should be of concern is whether people charged with less threatening crimes will show up for court, whether they will commit offenses while free w/o bail, and whether they are already offenders or awaiting trial for a previous offense.
Once that research is conducted, legislators can reason logically instead of emotionally. Legislators must think with their heads predominant to their hearts.
Wait until they hear of whats going on in Maryland. The Youth Accountibility and Safety Act.
Scary.
No bail for the accused and they will just skip out on court entirely, and eventually end up in more trouble. All these proposals to try and target inequities will end up changing nothing.
The maximum jail sentence for a misdemeanor is 90 days in the cooler. Nationwide, the average time for disposition of a misdemeanor (according to the National Center for State Courts) is 193 days, or over twice the maximum jail sentence.
Explain to me why it is just to keep people accused of a crime locked up for more time than they would receive even if they got the maximum.
A number of the commenters are writing to the problem of individuals who are released on bail (which may or many be on a serious felony charge) committing other crimes. That’s a separate issue or problem which implicates the related problem of overcrowded court calendars and court systems dealing intelligently with balancing a charged person’s liberty and presumption of innocence with safety to others and the community, the risk of flight and nonappearance for further proceedings and trial.
This article is about a bill that proposes elimination of cash bail for misdemeanor offenses which are typically (not always) relatively minor offenses where public safety is not a serious concern. It’s been my experience before I retired from law practice that in many jurisdictions, judges will set bail schedules for these of charges where an accused person can go free without even appearing before a judge by putting up cash (bail) paid to a clerk or police to guarantee appearance at court at some point. The accused who is probably under arrest never appears before the judge unless he or she cannot post bail. The accused might languish in jail for months unless they can convince the judge to allow pre-trial release “on their own recognizance” (without putting up any cash). Rep. Frazier’s bill does raise the need for serious legislative review of this area of setting bail, if not reform.
The DC Police chief just ruined the whole narrative of lenient bail and sentencing by informing his city that the average amount of arrests for criminals arrested for murder was 11. That is 11 times the DA had a chance to put the murderer away from society and failed. Unfortunately a person died because of terrible policies and yet we are told be lenient on crime. No thank you.
A legal gun owner is one trigger pull from being a murderer. Should we lock up everyone who’s so close to being so dangerous?
Point being: you can only lock people up for what they’ve done; not for what they might do.
And lastly, the article is talking about bail for misdemeanors; a far cry from violent crime.
Conservatives want to enforce pre-crime where they can lock everyone up until they can be shown to not be a threat to the conservative safe bubble they like to fantasize about. So basically locking up anyone who doesn’t identify as straight, white, and Christian. The fact red states have significantly higher violent crime rates doesn’t sway them because, you know, why would reality matter?
Reality: The top 3 states in violent crime rates are Washington DC, Alaska and New Mexico. The bottom 3 are Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico. So, what is Red and what is Blue?
Your statement about wanting to lock people up before being being convicted is an illusion.