Minnesota legislators are scrambling to pass landmark measures that would dramatically overhaul the state's drug laws, lowering sentences for many offenders.
But Minnesota judges already decided long ago those penalties were too harsh.
Across the state, judges consistently reject sentencing recommendations on high-level drug crimes, according to a Star Tribune analysis of 2010-2014 felonies, the most current available data. In 2014, judges strayed from the guidelines in seven out of 10 of the most severe cases, overwhelmingly to give lower penalties. The most common reason cited was faith that the defendant could be rehabilitated.
The statistics for second-degree drug cases were similar, with judges opting to sentence outside the recommendations 58 percent of the time. The review found that judges in Hennepin and Ramsey counties are far more likely to break from the guidelines than judges in rural areas, which means offenders in outstate Minnesota more often receive stiffer penalties.
The findings come as law enforcement officials around the country are rethinking criminal penalties for drug crimes.
Mary Moriarty, chief public defender in Hennepin County, attributes this trend to rising sentiment that addiction should be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal one.
"We thought that arresting and sentencing our way out of this solves the problem, and clearly it hasn't," Moriarty said. "I think what the judges are doing is using their authority to bring us in line with drug reform across the country."
To calculate penalties, Minnesota relies on an independent state body called the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, designed to create uniformity in how courts across the state punish criminals for the same offense.