Blog
What are the Key Factors in Minnesota’s Sentencing Guidelines?
Contents
What are the Key Factors in Minnesota’s Sentencing Guidelines?
Minnesota was the first U.S. state to implement sentencing guidelines in 1980, with the goal of creating a more rational, consistent and proportional approach to criminal sentencing1. The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (MSGC) was established to develop and maintain the guidelines, which determine presumptive sentences for felony offenses based primarily on the severity of the crime and the offender’s criminal history13. The key principles behind Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines are12:
- Sentences should be proportional to the severity of the offense and the offender’s criminal history
- Sentencing disparities should be reduced or eliminated
- Sentencing should be rational, consistent and uniform
- Prison beds are a limited resource and should be used judiciously
- Departures from presumptive sentences should only occur when there are substantial and compelling reasons
While the guidelines aimed to create a more fair and effective sentencing system, their implementation and outcomes have faced challenges over the years. Let’s take a closer look at some of the key factors and issues surrounding Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines.
The Sentencing Guidelines Grid
At the heart of Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines is the Sentencing Guidelines Grid, a matrix that provides presumptive sentences based on the severity level of the offense and the offender’s criminal history score13. The vertical axis of the grid represents 11 severity levels of offenses, ranging from low-level theft to murder. The horizontal axis is the criminal history score, which is calculated based on the offender’s prior convictions and custody status at the time of the current offense3. The presumptive sentences in the grid are either a stayed (probationary) sentence or a fixed executed prison sentence in months3. For cases falling in shaded areas of the grid, the presumptive sentence is executed prison time. Unshaded areas carry a presumptive stayed sentence3. This grid structure was designed to reserve prison space for serious offenders while providing more uniform and proportional sentences statewide1. However, judges can depart from the presumptive sentence if they find substantial and compelling reasons to do so, which must be stated on the record13.
Sentencing Disparities and Departures
One of the primary goals of the sentencing guidelines was to reduce sentencing disparities, especially in relation to offenders’ race, gender and geographic location12. While the guidelines have had some success in this area compared to the previous indeterminate system, disparities have persisted. A 1991 legislative auditor’s report found that sentencing departures, while relatively low overall, varied significantly across judicial districts, with departure rates ranging from 16% to 48%2. This suggests that different areas of the state were interpreting and applying the guidelines differently.Racial disparities have also continued under the guidelines, with data showing that people of color, especially Black and Native American offenders, are more likely to receive prison sentences and less likely to receive downward departures compared to White offenders2.
Additionally, plea bargaining practices, which are not regulated by the guidelines, have enabled some disparities to persist as prosecutors and defense attorneys negotiate charges and sentences2. Some have argued that the guidelines shifted power and discretion from judges to prosecutors2. While the guidelines have provided a more uniform starting point, their real-world application has not fully eliminated troubling sentencing disparities. Monitoring and addressing these disparities remains an ongoing challenge.
Sentencing Policy Changes and Prison Population
Since their inception, the sentencing guidelines have shaped Minnesota’s sentencing practices and, in turn, its prison population. In the guidelines’ early years, Minnesota maintained one of the lowest incarceration rates in the country while crime rates remained stable12. However, in the 1990s and 2000s, the legislature began to enact various sentencing policy changes that increased the severity of consequences for certain crimes, especially sex offenses, drug crimes and DWIs12. These changes included statutory mandatory minimums, increased presumptive sentences, and required consecutive sentencing1. As a result of these “get tough” policies, combined with rising felony caseloads, Minnesota’s prison population grew significantly faster than projected by the MSGC. From 1990 to 2005, the state’s incarceration rate increased by 150%2. Critics argue that many of these changes were enacted without adequate consideration of their impact on prison beds, costs, and public safety outcomes2. Some contend that the legislature has undermined the original intent and principles of the guidelines2. The MSGC has continued to grapple with balancing the guidelines’ goals with political and public pressures around crime and sentencing. Its limited control over sentencing policy has made long-term, data-driven planning a challenge.
Searching for 21st Century Strategies
Faced with the limitations and unintended consequences of the sentencing guidelines, Minnesota has begun to explore alternative strategies to create a more effective and sustainable criminal justice system for the 21st century. Some of these strategies involve carving out certain offenses or offenders from the guidelines’ structure in order to provide more individualized and evidence-based interventions2. For example:
- Expanding problem-solving courts (e.g. drug courts, DWI courts, mental health courts) to address specific offender needs and reduce recidivism
- Increasing the use of validated risk-needs assessments to identify appropriate supervision levels and services
- Implementing targeted rehabilitation and reentry programs for offenders transitioning back to the community
- Investing in community-based alternatives to incarceration for low-risk offenders
There has also been growing interest in restorative justice approaches that focus on repairing harm, meeting victim needs, and reintegrating offenders2. Some jurisdictions have established restorative justice programs as an alternative or complement to traditional sentencing. Additionally, the MSGC and state legislature have taken steps to address the growth of the prison population and associated costs. In 2016, the MSGC made several modifications to the guidelines, including1:
- Reducing the severity level of certain drug offenses
- Eliminating mandatory minimums for low-level drug crimes
- Expanding presumptive probation for low-level offenses
- Capping probation terms at 5 years, with exceptions for some serious crimes
These changes aimed to reduce the prison population and provide more flexibility in local sentencing and supervision practices. However, some argue that further reforms are still needed. As Minnesota looks to the future of its sentencing policies and practices, it will need to balance multiple goals – public safety, consistency, proportionality, cost-effectiveness, and equity. Achieving these goals will likely require a combination of guidelines modifications, targeted interventions, and increased investment in community-based alternatives. The state’s experience with sentencing guidelines offers valuable lessons for other jurisdictions considering similar structures. While guidelines can provide a starting framework for greater consistency and rationality in sentencing, their success depends on their design, implementation, and integration with broader systemic reforms. Ongoing evaluation and adaptation are essential.