LWVMN Positions on Criminal Justice

Promote social and economic justice.

Select issue:

Judiciary

LWVMN Position:

Support a judicial system with the capacity to assure a speedy trial and equal justice for all.

Details:

Support:

Administrative reforms that expedite justice: establishment of a unified court system, an intermediate appellate court, and procedures to strengthen and streamline judicial administration; additional staff for prosecution, public defenders and legal services when such needs are established; statewide guidelines on bail-fixing process; standardization of forms and procedures; use of technology in administration; use of juries in civil cases only by request
Methods to improve judicial quality: a nonpartisan selection with a commission to propose names for all appointments to the bench; mandatory training for all judges; adequate salary increases for judges and related revision of retirement benefits
Procedural reforms that ensure individual rights and access to due process of law: reform of bail process to recognize methods other than monetary to ensure appearance of accused at trial; strict guarantees to ensure protection of the defendant and society in the use of plea bargaining; sentencing alternatives; methods to reduce disparity in sentencing; no-fault divorce procedure using irremediable differences as grounds for dissolution; guarantees to witnesses in grand jury proceedings re: counsel in proceedings, availability of information to defense counsel and restrictions on waiving immunity in later trials; retention of age 18 for persons under jurisdiction of juvenile court; mandatory first appearance in juvenile court for all persons under jurisdiction of such court; requirement for formal transcript of commitment hearings with a rule or regulation protecting privacy of such records
The development of community alternatives as an adjunct to the judicial system: alternatives for sentencing; alternatives for handling behavior now defined as "status offenses" and "social (or victimless) crimes" (1973)

History of State Action

In 1971-72 Local Leagues observed the various levels of the Minnesota court system and studied their constitutional and statutory requirements. Consensus was reached in March 1973. In 1982 the Legislature passed a proposed constitutional amendment for a new state court of appeals. League lobbied successfully for the passage of this amendment, and enabling legislation was passed in 1983. League action continues to emphasize court unification, alternatives for handling behavior now defined as "status offenses" and "social (or victimless) crimes," guarantees of protection to witnesses in grand jury proceedings, and support of community alternatives as an adjunct to the judiciary system.

The League adopted at the 1997 convention a study of the election of judges in Minnesota. The goal of the study is to examine the present system and look at alternative proposals for appointing judges. The study will educate League members in how the system now functions and how it might be improved.

Selection Of Judges

LWVMN Position:

Initial appointment of judgeship by the governor, who must choose from among a list of qualified candidates forwarded by a nominating commission.
End-of-term evaluation of the judge’s performance by an evaluation commission, results to be made available to the public.
Retention election: voters choose to retain or not retain the judge. (2008)

Rationale:

Appointment by the governor assures that new judges will be highly qualified and assures a role for the public on the commission. The commission should be broadly based and nonpartisan.
End-of-term evaluation provides voters with good information when they vote for judges. It assures a role for the public both in submitting information to the commission and in serving on the commission; the commission should be broadly based and nonpartisan.
A retention election gives the voting public the final word as to whether or not a judge should be kept in office. The merit selection/retention system has shown itself best at keeping politics and money out of elections. For those groups wishing to oust a judge there is a major disincentive: they cannot choose the judge's replacement.
The merit selection/retention system has shown itself best at keeping politics and money out of elections. For those groups wishing to oust a judge there is a major disincentive: they cannot choose the judge's replacement.

Detail

As long as the current system for judicial selection prevails, LWVMN strongly favors retaining the incumbency designation on judicial ballots. (1999)

History of State Action on Selection Of Judges

At the May 2007 LWVMN convention, delegates voted to re-examine our 1999 position on the selection of judges, given the momentous US Supreme Court and 8th circuit court decisions (2002 and 2005, respectively) that opened the way to politicizing judicial elections. It was clear from our 1999 consensus that the membership does not favor politicizing judicial elections. Hence, a re-examination of our position on judicial selection was undertaken in mid-2007 and completed in February 2008.

Corrections

LWVMN Position:

Support a correctional system responsive to the needs of the individual offender and of society. Support sentencing decisions based on circumstances in relation to the crime, the offender and the effect on public safety, made by the judge within legislative guidelines. Support the abolition of the death penalty and oppose its reinstatement in Minnesota.

Adult Corrections Position Details

Support:

Correctional options which will protect society from the offender
Provision for a continuum of correctional options available according to the needs of the individual offender. The continuum should range from maximum security to facilities and services in the community
Treatment and rehabilitative programs for all offenders. Among the programs should be those of mental health, education, job preparation, employment assistance and counseling. There should be appropriate incentives to encourage offender participation in programs
Recognition of the offender as an individual with basic human rights commensurate with constitutional rights except as necessary for the protection of offenders and society. These rights include, but are not limited to, healthful conditions and due process
Ongoing programs of evaluation and research as an aid in setting program priorities. Included within the scope of the program are need identification, data collection and retrievability, and the use of scientific methods in designing the evaluation plan
Education programs aimed at increasing citizen knowledge and awareness of all facets of corrections
Up-to-date personnel procedures including, but not limited to, training, compensations plans, grievance procedures (1975)

History Of State Action on Adult Corrections

In 1973-74 LWVMN examined correctional institutions, programs and personnel on the local, county and state levels. The adult corrections consensus and concurrence with the consensus of the LWV Minneapolis on juvenile corrections were reached in the spring of 1975. After the 1981 state Convention passed a call to action urging immediate funding for a new Minnesota Correctional Institution for Women, LWVMN lobbied in support of it during the 1983 legislative session, and a bonding bill was passed providing for funding of a new facility.

LWVMN members have lobbied in favor of uniform standards and equal treatment of prisoners in all county jails. They have also lobbied for support of the mutual agreement program, a greater use of community corrections, frequent and regular evaluations, drug education programs, consideration of physical or psychological disorders when specifying treatment or work expectations, the concept of inmate rights, preventive programs for juveniles and corrective training.

In 2000 LWVMN submitted written testimony to the Senate Crime Prevention Committee in support of a statewide integrated criminal justice information system. The bill to provide for sharing information between agencies was signed into law.

Juvenile Justice Position Details

Support:

A program of evaluation of the juvenile justice system in Minnesota
Continual evaluation of all existing programs for juveniles and their families funded and/or used by public agencies
The availability of a complete continuum of services for troubled, delinquent, abused and neglected youth and their families. This includes quality community-based corrections in all geographic areas as an alternative to the traditional institutional setting in an attempt to assure the most successful rehabilitation and prevent further offenses. It does not deny the value of secure institutional treatment for some. We define quality as including proper supervision, standards, inspections and screening of residents
Maximum effort directed toward finding adequate alternatives to detention, juvenile court processes and institutionalization
Diversion of juveniles to community alternatives from the formal judicial process at all levels
The consideration of confidentiality in efforts to coordinate services for juveniles
Constitutional protections for juveniles equal to those for adults, including due process of law, and protection from invasion of privacy and unwarranted removal from their families (1975)

Sentencing Position Details

Support:

A presumptive sentencing model, but not indeterminate sentencing, the presumptive sentencing model to be fixed by administrative or judicial staff
Consideration of mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances
The use of diversion and contracts between offenders and authorities
Sentencing based on both the seriousness of the crime and the needs of the offender
Sentencing taking into consideration:

the need for drug counseling
whether the offender has a marketable skill
academic training of the offender
need for psychiatric treatment
restitution when appropriate
the availability of a residence and/or employment
resolution of the causative situation

No consensus was reached on plea bargaining, sentence length, time off for good behavior, or determinate or legislatively-fixed models. (1976)

History of State Action on Sentencing

Aware that sentencing was likely to be an issue in the 1977 Legislature, the LWVMN Corrections Committee asked for a mini-study and consensus on sentencing in fall 1976. Members supported presumptive sentencing, under which the Legislature would set minimum and maximum outer limits and a "presumed" sentence somewhere in between. The judge could vary the sentence within the limits, based on mitigating or aggravating circumstances defined by the Legislature.

Committee members monitored the progress of bills on determinate sentencing during the 1976-77 legislative session, while the Legislature continued to study the matter before recommending changes in Minnesota's indeterminate system. The 1978 Legislature passed a "guideline" determinate sentencing law which calls for a specified sentence based on the crime, allowing a 15% variance. The law created a ten-member commission appointed by the Governor to set the guidelines which became effective in July 1980. The League testified in favor of those portions of this law consistent with our position and did not support or oppose the rest of the provisions.

Death Penalty

LWVMN Position:

Support of abolition of the death penalty; Opposition to its reinstatement in Minnesota (concurrence with the LWV IL position and adopted at 2004 LWVMN Council)