Minnesota Freedom to Steal act

[New Guy]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/...yc:aUycaEacyUs

Bill takes a bite out of war on crime

The freedom to steal act? A Minnesota Senate measure with shorter sentences and more fees has plenty of critics.

By PATRICIA LOPEZ and JACKIE CROSBY, Star Tribune staff writers
Last update: March 26, 2009 - 7:04 AM

As soon as this summer, shoplifters could pilfer $250 in merchandise and walk away with a fine. Same for those who buy or sell up to an ounce of marijuana or who fence stolen goods. Bad checks up to $125 would get similar treatment, as would credit fraud under $250.

A Senate bill that would dramatically change the criminal justice system -- reducing sentences, changing misdemeanors to petty misdemeanors, vastly increasing fees -- is under serious consideration as a means of dealing with the state's gaping $4.6 billion budget deficit and relieving pressure on an overburdened court system.

Backed by Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Mee Moua, DFL-St. Paul, it would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for felony drunken driving and delay felonies to the fifth offense. Under other provisions, with time off for good behavior, prisoners at most levels could be released after serving as little as 60 percent of their sentences, and parole violators would see jail time limited to 90 days. Harassment restraining orders, a staple of domestic abuse cases, would disappear.

The bill that would make all these changes and more carries an innocuous label: Miscellaneous Criminal Justice System Changes. But some at the Capitol are calling it the Freedom to Steal Act and scratching their heads over how far the state will go to save a buck.

In addition to penalty changes, the bill imposes a cascade of fee increases on nearly every piece of paper that moves through the court system, adding new $1-per-page charges on top of general increases in filing and copying fees to raise $28 million over two years.

With fewer offenders going to prison and prisoners serving shorter sentences, the bill would eliminate 1,000 beds from the prison system, triggering layoffs and possibly the closure of a prison. The sentencing changes would save $30 million over four years, with $8 million of that coming from lighter drunken-driving sentences.

[Ryan Ruck]

But... but... but... They aren't criminals, they're "victims".

[Malsua]

Frankly, I don't have much of a problem with this, within reason. Pay restitution, pay a fine, be done with it. Not because I'm a thief...it's because I don't want to pay to house and feed thieves. Lets face it, unless there were threats of harm, and restitution was paid, I'd rather just punish the criminal fiscally than to incarcerate him. That goes out the window when we start talking burglary, armed robbery, etc.

[Ryan Ruck]

The only thing I worry about is the effect of it being less "dangerous" to commit these types of crimes. And, what happens if the criminal doesn't have the money to pay the fine? Odds are probably pretty good they would just steal the money!