Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sentencing Purpose Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates defining “public safety” in sentencing guidelines; experts propose adding language to avoid penalties that raise recidivism risk
Summary
Professor Kevin Wright told the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission on Feb. 13 that the commission could clarify "public safety" in the guidelines — suggesting definitions that include rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation and reintegration — and consider adding language to avoid sanctions that research links to greater future criminality.
Professor Kevin R. Wright of the University of Minnesota Law School returned to the Sentencing Guidelines Commission to propose options for revising guidelines language that would clarify the meaning of "public safety" and acknowledge unintended consequences of certain sanctions.
Wright told the commission that Minnesota’s current sentencing statute and the guidelines identify public safety and proportionality as lead purposes but contain no operational definition of public safety. He presented a 50-state review and the Model Penal Code’s approach and said states commonly define public safety to include deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation of dangerous offenders and reintegration of people returning to the community.
“Public safety could be defined to embrace the rehabilitation of offenders and the deterrence of future offenders, incapacitation of dangerous offenders, and reintegration of ex-offenders,” Wright said.
Wright also raised a drafting option that would add, as one element of public safety, a directive to avoid sanctions that research shows can increase an individual’s likelihood of future criminal conduct. He cited other states (Maryland, Utah, Massachusetts) whose statutes or guidelines advise limiting exposure to incarceration or overly long supervision terms for low-risk individuals because research links some correctional experiences to higher recidivism.
Commission reaction and concerns Several commissioners signaled support for adding a definition of public safety to provide structure for the commission’s future decisions. Chief of Police Brian Mueller called the broader definition on slide 1 “absolutely meaningful” while urging caution about the second proposal: “I am a little hesitant on slide 2… I’m not sure how we would define that.”
Richard Frase, the academic commissioner, and others discussed research on “prisonization,” collateral consequences (employment, housing, family ties) and trade-offs between denouncing serious conduct and avoiding harms that could increase future criminal behavior. Commissioner Frase noted these are balancing decisions: “If it’s a serious crime… maybe we have to put the balance in favor of offense severity.”
Some commissioners asked for careful drafting and commentary to define practical limits — which penalties or conditions should be considered, how to weigh offense seriousness against future-risk concerns, and how to protect victims’ and public safety interests. One commissioner said the second proposal felt too focused on the offender and urged that any added language also explicitly preserve victims’ and public-protection considerations.
Next steps Several commissioners expressed sufficient interest to direct staff to draft possible guideline language or commentary for the commission to consider as part of the comprehensive review. No formal vote was taken; the presentation was informational and the commission signaled interest in further drafting and debate.
Ending: The commission agreed there was enough interest to ask staff to prepare draft language and commentary for future meetings so members can consider how definitions might affect ongoing work on criminal-history and offense ranking.
