A prison sentence serves two main goals; to punish an offender for their actions and allow them to understand the consequences of their actions so that they do not commit another crime in the future. When a person is released from jail, they attempt to get on with their life, but that past conviction remains on their record. Now, Minnesota is considering re-evaluating how these past convictions are viewed in a court of law when a subsequent arrest occurs.
Later this month, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission will vote on a proposal to determine how previous drug convictions factor into the sentencing guidelines of convicted criminals. We’ve been working towards this vote for some time, as the ball got rolling earlier this year when Minnesota changed sentencing guidelines for low-level drug offenders. The change was designed so that possession laws don’t unfairly target drug addicts, who sometimes received the same sentences as drug dealers. Now, drug addicts receive shorter sentences, and longer sentences are reserved for larger drug kingpins.
That initial change was met with widespread support from both law enforcement and addiction advocates who believed it would prevent unjust sentences for low-level offenders. However, language in the new bill didn’t specify how the new law would impact old cases. Currently, old convictions for minor drug possession offenses still have the same impact on someone’s criminal history as under the old guidelines.
Understanding The Impact
For example, Gina Evans once received a 15-month sentence for theft because she had three previous drug possession convictions on her record. If the new proposal is accepted, those previous low-level convictions would be viewed under the new guidelines, meaning Evans would be eligible for a shorter sentence for her theft case.
“My medical issue called addiction was treated for a long time as a criminal justice issue instead of the public health issue that it really is,” Evans said at a public hearing before the Sentencing Guidelines Commission on Wednesday. “I feel like it’s a really important next step and it’s the right thing to do for the people of Minnesota.”
However, the Minnesota County Attorney’s Association, which supported the initial tweak to sentencing guidelines, is opposed to altering the language to affect previous cases. The reason being is that Executive Director Bob Small said it could create a loophole for individuals. He cited a case involving three men and a deadly shooting at a St. Paul motel, saying that the men charged in the murder could seek a shorter sentence for their murder charge, while the driver in the incident who has no prior drug convictions would not be able to file a motion for a reduction in his sentence. It’s a small and somewhat odd loophole, but time will tell if it’s enough to derail the newest proposal.
The SGC will vote on the proposal on December 30.
