A public safety plan from Republicans who control Minnesota’s Senate would make sweeping changes to criminal penalties, increasing them for certain violent crimes and also increasing prison time broadly.
One measure would change Minnesota’s system of granting supervised release for most offenders after they serve two-thirds of their sentence in prison to releasing them after three-fourths of their sentence.
Top Republicans say the plan is an effort to increase accountability for those who commit offenses and to decrease violent crime. They point out Minnesota incarcerates relatively few people compared to other states (though Minnesota has high rates of probation). The bill also wouldn’t cause a spike in the prison population or cost much money in the short term.
It would, however, substantially increase the number of people in Minnesota’s prisons later on — to the point that they could eventually be overloaded.
On Tuesday, Paul Schnell, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, said during a hearing of the Senate’s Finance Committee that it’s the Legislature’s prerogative to increase sentences “especially in light of what’s going on.” But he said as a result, the state’s prison and supervision costs will “increase and increase dramatically,” if the bill were to pass.
“And the day will come when the state will need to rent beds or increase capacity by building a new prison,” Schnell said.
How the GOP’s public safety plan would impact prisons
The Republican public safety omnibus bill — which includes dozens of measures rolled into one piece of legislation — hasn’t attracted much Democratic support and is all but certain not to clear the DFL-controlled House in its current form. But the legislation does signal top GOP priorities heading into an election year when the party has a shot at winning the House, Senate and governor’s office.
The bill includes the measure to extend the time before people are allowed supervised release, but also includes many other policies that lengthen prison sentences. One proposal would establish carjacking as a crime — a violent carjacking is usually charged right now as a robbery — and increase maximum penalties over what a robbery charge would bring.
Adults who commit a third violent felony or a sixth felony of any kind would face longer prison sentences under another measure, as would people who commit a violent crime involving a gun.
In total, Schnell said there were eight policy bills included in the omnibus plan that would impact prison beds for years. And not just minimally. “Collectively, the policies will, in the long term, stretch well beyond the state’s existing capacity,” Schnell said.
The state’s current prison population is about 7,500, and the state has capacity for about 9,500 people. But the current number of people is lower than normal, Schnell said. Courts have faced backlogs because of the COVID-19 pandemic that should ease and result in more imprisoned people, Schnell told the Finance committee.
The DOC estimates it would need an extra 261 prison beds in 2023 because of the bill, roughly 706 additional beds by 2024 and 1,100 in 2025. Ten years out, in 2032, the state would need more than 2,270 additional beds, Schnell said. That’s more than the total capacity of Minnesota’s largest prison in Faribault.
The public safety omnibus bill includes $2.7 million for prison bed costs from those eight policy provisions in 2023, and officials estimate they would cost $23.8 million over the following two-years. But the measures would become pricier over time.
The DOC estimated the additional beds would cost $36 million by 2035, and while the Senate bill would pay for additional beds in the short term, it would not fund additional long-term costs from having more people incarcerated, such as a new prison or bed rentals. Spokesman Nicholas Kimball said the DOC would exceed its current capacity as early as 2025.
“While these provisions in some instances profoundly increase sanctions for criminal behavior, they also come at a profound economic cost,” Schnell said.
Schnell said the omnibus bill comes as the DOC faces an estimated $600 million in maintenance needs for prisons they already operate.
Schnell also argued the agency is not in a better financial position because of their lower prison population. The DOC’s budget was reduced by $21 million in 2021 by the Legislature because of that reduced number of people. The state also faces a staffing crisis in prisons and county jails, which could be exacerbated by the bill, Schnell said.
Still, the Legislature is flush with cash, at least at the moment. Lawmakers have a $9.25 billion budget surplus, plus another $1 billion in unspent federal money from the American Rescue Plan. The Senate’s $2.7 million for bed costs in 2023 would be only a small fraction of that surplus.
Schnell told the Finance committee that the state should focus on addressing violent crime and repeat offenders amid an increase in crime, and he said prison commitment does play a role in crime deterrence as well. But he also said the GOP plan doesn’t invest enough in rehabilitation and restoration strategies. Instead, he said it “focuses solely and significantly on increased punishment.”
State Sen. Warren Limmer, a Maple Grove Republican who chairs the public safety committee, said Tuesday during the Finance committee hearing that the public safety bill “provides a more robust level of not only punishment but deterrence in the form of sentencing and that’s directed at the very worst of the worst of our offenders that we are seeing in our communities now, especially those that are using firearms to carry out their criminal acts.”
Senator Limmer is in error. There’s no evidence that longer sentences deter crime or lower crime rates. Mr. Schnell, who doesn’t strike me as anyone’s idea of a flaming liberal, is spot-on, I think, in advocating for a better state response to violent crime and repeat offenders, but the research shows that length of sentence has little or nothing to do with addressing either of those issues. What deters potential criminals, and/or potential repeat offenders, is the CERTAINTY of apprehension and punishment. In that context, more money for police resources, including prosecutors, would be more useful than longer sentences. Mr. Schnell is also spot-on in pointing out the insufficient attention paid in the Republican bill to rehabilitation and restoration – both of them necessary unless the Republican goal is to create a permanent underclass of hostile, resentful, ex-convicts.
It’s neither practical nor effective (nor moral) to write laws and behave toward criminals as if, once they’ve made a mistake, they are cast out of society, never to be allowed to return. No one who approaches the issue of criminality in this fashion should be attending church, except to prayerfully beg for forgiveness for their own evil attitude. Nor should they be calling themselves, with a straight face, a Christian. Nothing in my own copies of the New Testament supports the notion of locking someone up and literally and figuratively throwing away the key.
And finally, because I can’t just let it go without comment at all, doing something about the prevalence and toxicity of poverty throughout the state would make much of the other spending (police, prisons, prosecutors) unnecessary.
So, ineffective and fiscally irresponsible too.
You say that as if it’s a bug, not a feature. How does a corrupt GOP politician milk the private prison industry for campaign contributions if there isn’t a need for private prison beds? They’re just planning for the future. That’s the difference between conservatives and the rest of us, when we plan for future needs, it’s about what ALL of us might need, when they do, it’s about where they can extract more money for themselves.
For those who claim to embrace “democracy,” you should appreciate that what the democratically-elected republicans are proposing is only what their voters want. Allowing criminals to run free, regardless of how many prison beds are at issue, would be to go against the people’s desire to be free of violent crime, despite whatever dubious studies may show about the effectiveness of incarceration on the crime rate. In a “democracy,” the people’s voice is all that matters.
I think we can safely discard that line, for the sole reason that we ALL care about reducing crime and making Minnesota safer. Doling out more severe punishment without doing anything to address the reasons people commit crime, and not doing any more on the back end to rehabilitate people who’ve served longer sentences, is a solution that only secures a vote short term without solving anything long term. It shouldn’t be above our elected officials to learn from and champion the opinions of experts in criminology, psychology, economics, and other studies that underlie the causes of criminal activity, and give those views more weight than a low-information (or high-disinformation) consuming voter. I choose my representatives based on what they know and what they can do better than I can, not for doing what I tell them every time.
They commit the crime because they are criminals. Most of them repeat offenders. They know they will walk after they are arrested, because BLM pays their bail. Carjacking should be a felony with prison time, no exceptions if you want to stop it. I was waiting for you to say we need to figure out why they are committing the crimes and deal with that. I am all for helping people learn a trade, they can do that by enrolling in high school. If they drop out and refuse to go back, chances are higher they may end up committing crimes.
Another person mentioned they are only doing what their constituents want them to do. No kidding. Arrest them and put them in jail and stop this repeat probation. The people that killed 3 last summer on W 7th were all on probation for committing felonies. That has to stop. If the Democrats don’t understand this, they will lose and lose big in local and state elections this fall.
So what if the House, controlled by Democrats, and the Governor, who is a Democrat, have different ideas about how to deal with the crime problem. But we don’t listen to them because in a “democracy” your side’s demands are the only thing that should count. Got it.
Although if you carry this out to the extreme, why we could have an election and a minority might refuse to accept the results. Is that also a “democracy?”
“In a “democracy,” the people’s voice is all that matters.”
Absolutely, and that is why we have not had a statewide Republican office holder in the last 20 years and and 2/3 of our current government is controlled by Democrats. Dennis is very right:
“the people’s voice is all that matters.”
I have always struggled with your statement “In a democracy, the people’s voice is all that matters.” I don’t believe ‘the people’ are always right … sometimes people are selfish or wrong or immoral or cannot see a larger picture of the future or of consequences. But, who can, right? And, therein, the dilemma for me. If what “the people” want is wrong, in some way, is a leader’s job to simply give them what they want? I once worked with a fairly significant group who had a leader who simply had the people he supervised vote on every issue. As a leader … he simply counted the votes and followed the vote. I had no respect for him. Shouldn’t a leader do what is right? Kind of like parenting.
Are politicians truly leaders? I doubt that … if they are simply carrying out the will of the people. That is not leadership … in my opinion.
But …. then look at a number of the politicians we have …. I take all I have written back.
I would like to think that some of the Repubs behind this legislation are actually in favor of reducing crime and setting up a better mechanism to do justice. But that is a big pill to swallow.
Some thoughts to ponder, which this GOP bill doesn’t seem to consider. We are a gun-worshipping society, and we must either face that fact or (heaven forbid) stand up to the gun lobby.
Compared to other countries, we lock up a huge portion of our population. As noted above, there is no evidence that long prison terms reduce crime.
If we are not dealing with a lot of the problems that lead to crime (poverty, health care) then this legislation is irrelevant.
This country was formed on a bedrock of Puritan beliefs, and that punitive us vs. them is sewn into the fabric of our nation. This, too, must be acknowledged and faced. In this regard we are very different from most other countries, and this is not a favorable comparison.
And finally, as to the comment suggesting that politicians’ only job is to do their voters’ bidding, well no. They need to lead. They are voted in to do a job – pass legislation – and that entails doing some research, dig deep into the issues, show some backbone, and propose to their voters the best way forward on a given problem.
I mean, if your voters claim something nutty like the Earth is flat and the 2020 election was stolen, your true responsibility is to gently point out the error of their ways, not follow THEIR lead. Follow that kind of thinking and you’d have mob rule. Perish the thought.
“Adults who commit a third violent felony or a sixth felony of any kind would face longer prison sentences under another measure, as would people who commit a violent crime involving a gun.”
And that is standing up to the gun lobby.
And which of you wants to be on the side of those committing a “third violent felony” or a “sixth felony of any kind”?
“It would, however, substantially increase the number of people in Minnesota’s prisons later on — to the point that they could eventually be overloaded.”
Let me see if I have the math correct, 2023 $2.7M/261=$10,344 , $23.8M/706-1,100=$33,711.04- $21,636, just guesstimating the cost of the “R” program. You know this looks like one of the greatest welfare programs I have ever seen! Sit on your butt, we’ll house you feed you and provide medical care, and you all do nothing, while the taxpayer dishes out somewhere between $10,344 and $33,711 per head per year. And this is a “R” program! Suspect there are folks that may want to commit crimes just to get in on the good deal!
Republicans want an unfunded mandate at the same time they want to permanent taxes cuts with one time money. There once was a time when they could make numbers add up correctly.
For all of those folks who say longer sentences for violent criminals doesn’t deter crime, you forget that while the violent criminal is in prison he can’t commit violence against citizens. That alone is reason enough for longer sentences. Not sure why some here at Minnpost feel violent criminals should be treated with kid gloves. Do a violent crime, do major jail time….. Pretty simple!
Just that simple right? Well Joe get out your check book, because it isn’t just that simple. Each head behind bars ~ $20 some odd +/- K a year, looks like you are more than happy to start writing those checks. Just that simple!
Of all the money wasted by our Government, you’re worried about 20k to lock up violent predators. I will gladly pay for violent criminals to be behind bars. You fail to realize the trauma the victims live with the rest of their life by being assaulted by a predator. That type of thinking has led to this crime spree we are living in Minneapolis.
“Nearly half (46%) of people incarcerated in state prisons in 2015 were convicted of nonviolent drug, property or public order crimes.”
https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Facts-About-Prisons.pdf
“We found that approximately 39% of the nationwide prison population (576,000 people) is behind bars with little public safety rationale. And they can be released, significantly and safely cutting our prison population.”
https://time.com/4596081/incarceration-report/
End the pointless drug war and we’ll free up the space for violent offenders. We’ll also free up the policing resources to pursue violent criminals.
How many budget surpluses does it take for people to realize we tax more than we need. Use some of that surplus to start building now.The average Minnesotan is sick of the crime, and I am fine with building more prisons and keeping violent offenders there for a very long time.
Waiting for the far left to start complaining about racial justice. I don’t care what race/gender someone is, if you commit violent felonies you belong in prison. I don’t go to downtown Mpls at all anymore, and a lot of people feel the same.
It is “those folks” it is the well-documented reality. It is just that people who aren’t simple-minded conservatives have the capacity to consider solutions that have more than one step and aren’t based solely on an Old Testement/Taliban brand of justice. Conservatives are focused on implementing structures based on their desire for violent vengnece and nothing else. Encouraging violent, militarized and unaccountable police (who don’t even need to meet the minimum rules of engagement for our military while in a war zone) and a justice system that deals with crime after the fact while purposefully undermining any efforts that actually reduce crime in the first place. Ignoring the fact that the policing they prefer is nothing but a reactionary force that shows up after the crime has occurred and once there solve a fraction of crimes so small it is inconsequential. Of course since around 40% of police officers are involved in domestic abuse, expecting them to reduce violent crime would be like asking Republican congressman John Rose to address issues around grooming children.
There is a reason the states that top the list for violent crime rates are largely Republican run.
Dan …. you make some good points. I can tell that you are very emotionally engaged in this issue because of your name calling, finger pointing and dramatic words. I’ll skip over a bit of your drama and emotion, but to say that conservatives only believe in “violent vengence” is wrong … people incarcerated, as a consequence for their crime, for a period of time is not “violent vengence.” In addition “violent … unaccountable police” … I don’t believe that is correct … occasionally that happens, but to accuse the entire force of that is wrong. You are making some very broad generalizations. I’ll stop there because I would just be repeating myself. If we can ‘back off’ on the highly emotional, dramatic accusations that stretch the truth …. will be of more help to us than not.
Now that you’ve gone to great lengths to ensure we all know what a reasonable, temperate, civilized person you are, do you have anything meaningful to add? I mean aside from pointing out others points that you find faulty, in order to further burnish the qualities I mentioned above?
Are you implying people who are incarcerated lose citizenship by the fact of their conviction and are you implying violence does not occur in prisons?
I have some news for you…
It’s funny how Republicans can only recirculate failed policies of the past. We’ve been there and done that and aside from overpopulating prisons and jails and creating a private prison industry it didn’t end crime. None of the analysis over the years looking at the reduction in violent crime ever pointed to the expanded incarcerations or mandatory sentences as the key explanation for the reduction. The most consistent finding of that era was that those prison policies turn criminals into much more hardened criminals who are more problematic when they’re released… you can’t keep them locked up forever.