By Sonali Kolhatkar for Yes!Magazine.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Minnesota News Connection reporting for the YES! Media-Public News Service Collaboration

The United States incarcerates more people than nearly any other country in the world. Among the millions in detention at any given time are hundreds of thousands being held in jails. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, “More than 400,000 people in the U.S. are currently being detained pretrial – in other words, they are awaiting trial and still legally innocent.” A significant portion of these people are “jailed pretrial simply because they can’t afford money bail.” Increasingly, nonprofit bail funds, such as the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), are stepping in to offer an alternative to the predatory bail bonds industry.

Elizer Darris, MFF’s co-executive director, explains, “Historically, people have been released on what’s called their own recognizance—meaning their word that they will come back.” But, he says, the reality is that “there has not been any type of causal connection between bail and someone’s reappearance.”

Yet there is one causal connection that deeply concerns Darris: the link between the skin color of people who are arrested, and an assumption of their guilt. High on the list of issues that MFF tackles is “the criminalization of Black and Brown people” and “the automatic determination that because of how I look I must be guilty.”

“Something that a lot of people don’t know, and it actually may shock people,” Darris says, is that “jails actually have worse living conditions than prisons.” He says the criminal justice system essentially holds poor people hostage to “terrible jail conditions.” 

“Our organization exists so that [prosecutors] aren’t able to use coercive practices like jailing in order to get people to plead guilty to offenses that they otherwise would not be guilty to,” Darris says. MFF makes bail payments on behalf of people who are jailed and who otherwise would be unable to afford the bail that buys them their freedom while they await trial or formal charges.

The organization, which was the focus of news coverage and donations during the racial justice uprisings of 2020, is now facing a Republican-led state bill that would make it illegal to operate a nonprofit bail fund in Minnesota.

Darris, who views the entirety of the criminal justice system as problematic, says, “What we have decided to do as an organization was to have a historical view to recognize that many of the policies and practices that we see today have their roots in slavery in the United States.” Given such a framing, he sees it as “an obligation to disrupt those practices, and that’s precisely what we are doing.”

“Our organization isn’t just focused on bail funds,” Darris says. “It’s called the ‘Freedom Fund,’” because that name reflects a “broader definition that takes on the criminal justice system.”

“We are trying to disrupt some of the predatory practices that are happening within bail,” Darris says. “But what we’ve seen is that’s just not enough.”

As a nonprofit, MFF is prohibited from participating in political activism—so it has recently expanded its work into a second organization, a 501(c)(4) organization called MFF Action, whose function will be to “actually take action to put boots on the ground to door-knock within our community to not just support legislation, but to craft legislation.”

“If you can’t change the policies, you change the policymakers, you change the people who will put community at the center of their decision-making,” Darris says.

High on MFF Action’s list of priorities is gaining access to better data. Currently, district courts have limited public access data about who is required to pay bail, which makes it harder for activists to make their case against predatory bail practices.

Additionally, Darris says MFF Action will work to “make sure that bails aren’t being issued on some of the exceedingly low-level offenses that, quite frankly, do not impact public safety in the least bit.”

He says, “Part of the U.S. Constitution is that you cannot be given the bail that is excessive. You have to take into account the person’s ability to pay. [Prosecutors are] not doing that here in Minnesota. And so, we are fighting to make sure that bails aren’t just frivolously being given out.”


Sonali Kolhatkar wrote this article for YES! Magazine.


get more stories like this via email

About 7,000 Nebraskans with felony convictions who thought they'd be able to register to vote, now face uncertainty.

In question is the constitutionality of Legislative Bill 20, a new law scheduled to take effect last week.

It restores voting rights without a two year waiting period for people who've served their sentences. Gov. Jim Pillen allowed it to become law without his signature.

Jane Seu, legal and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, said it appears Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnen asked Attorney General Mike Hilgers about the law, and Hilgers has concluded it is unconstitutional.

"This is a validly passed and enacted law," said Seu. "The legislature passed it through its own process with major bipartisan support. So really, I think what all the Attorney General's doing - and the Secretary of State - is really just causing confusion and doubt for voters, questioning their right to vote."

In his opinion, Hilgers points out the Nebraska Constitution grants the power to restore voting rights to the Board of Pardons.

Seu said she thinks this opinion has the potential to harm many more Nebraskans than those helped by LB-20.

That's because it also calls a 2005 law into question, which established the two-year waiting period in lieu of a Board of Pardons decision.

Seu said the speed with which Evnen acted after receiving Hilgers' opinion is noteworthy.

"So, the Attorney General released his opinion, and the Secretary of State has decided to follow that - and has directed county election officials to not register people with felony convictions to vote," said Seu. "That happened the same day, so kind of showing some coordination to keep people with felony convictions from being able to vote."

With the passage of LB-20, Nebraska became one of the 40 states that restore voting rights to people with felony convictions. Seu said this issue is far from settled.

"We want every Nebraska voter to know that their vote matters," said Seu. "They deserve a say in our democracy, and we're going to do everything we can to uphold that right. So, we're exploring every possible option."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

It's being called a historic milestone - 200 people have been exonerated after being sentenced to death since 1973, what's known as the modern era of capital punishment.

The exonerees were wrongfully convicted, because of misconduct from government officials or other factors, and then set free after being behind bars - sometimes for decades.

Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said cases like this have been devastating not just for individual families, but for the nation.

"Communities really lose confidence in the integrity of the legal system," said Maher, "and its ability to respond appropriately and keep them safe."

Half of the public now believes the U.S. unfairly applies the death penalty, according to the latest polling. But a majority of Americans still favor death sentences for those convicted of murder.

Capital punishment is illegal in West Virginia, and the state's last execution was more than 60 years ago. But there have been efforts to reinstate it this year.

And a jury recommended federal death sentences for two Mountain State residents in 2007, which were later overturned.

Nationwide, Maher said far more than 200 people have likely been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, in part because of challenges with the legal appeal process.

"Once someone is convicted and sent to prison, that burden then shifts to them to prove that they're innocent," said Maher. "And that's very difficult to do without a good lawyer. And it's also very difficult to do because of the operation of the law."

The Death Penalty Information Center says two-thirds of those exonerated have been people of color.

President Joe Biden campaigned on abolishing the federal death penalty, but his administration has taken few steps to do so.




get more stories like this via email

The Michigan Supreme Court is set to reexamine the life without parole sentences of three men who have spent two decades in prison, convicted of murder at ages 18, 19 and 20.

The justices will consider several factors, including the age and immaturity of the individuals, their family and home environment and the circumstances of the crimes. In 2022, the Court ruled mandatory no-parole sentences for 18-year-olds convicted of murder violated the state constitution's prohibition on "cruel or unusual" punishment. It will now decide whether to extend the ruling to 19- and 20-year-olds.

Quinn Yeargain, associate professor of law at Michigan State University, supports the court's decision to review the cases.

"There's a good amount of literature out there suggesting that people who are in their late teens and even going into their early twenties, their brains are not fully developed," Yeargain pointed out. "That's sort of the basis of this constitutional challenge."

Critics of reducing life sentences for young offenders argued it is contradictory to claim individuals old enough to vote, marry and obtain abortions without parental consent should not be held fully accountable for their serious crimes.

The high court will also look at how the offenders dealt with police and prosecutors and whether they can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. Yeargain emphasized it is not about giving someone a "get out of jail free card." He said Michigan's parole board, which operates within the Department of Corrections, is known for being overly cautious in ensuring individuals seeking parole have genuinely undergone rehabilitation.

"We're talking about people who are still going to be serving very long prison terms, and it's just a statement that maybe they'll be eligible for parole at a certain point," Yeargain emphasized. "If they're able to make a showing that they have changed, they have demonstrated remorse -- then they may be entitled to release at that point."

In Michigan, no-parole life sentences for those 18 or younger are no longer automatic. Judges review their background and potential for rehabilitation, while prosecutors must justify the sentence. The court plans to review the cases in the fall.


get more stories like this via email