Minnesota prisons’ refusal to implement the law

The MRRA Act is now established law. Yet the Minnesota Department of Corrections and its MRRA Team have created a policy so insufficient that the law is not being meaningfully implemented, and thousands of incarcerated people are paying the price.

A large percentage of inmates have programming and treatment requirements they must complete before they can earn time off their sentences. The problem is that prisons like Faribault are openly admitting that no changes will be made to programming and treatment wait lists, while falsely claiming that the MRRA does not determine how a person gets into programming or treatment.

This creates a clear and obvious catch-22: inmates are required to complete programming to earn earlier release, but the DOC and Faribault prison are not facilitating access to that programming in a way that is consistent with the law. The MRRA entitles eligible inmates to earn up to 50% off their sentence. In practice, eligible prisoners are likely to be denied that early release through no fault of their own.

I have experienced this firsthand. When I inquired about how the MRRA Team planned to get me and others into treatment before our earliest possible release dates, the response was that the MRRA Team does not determine who gets into treatment, that I needed to follow established protocol, and that I should write to treatment about the long wait list. When I wrote to the treatment supervisor directly, she said that offers to participate in treatment are not based on any potential earned incentive release dates and that I am simply on the current wait list.

When I asked my lead case manager about getting into a required recidivism reduction program, I was told the MRRA does not mean I get to jump the line. When I filed a formal grievance, the grievance administrator dismissed it, stating that the MRRA does not alter how individuals are prioritized for programming and does not change how wait lists operate or how programming is delivered. He then acknowledged that the MRRA’s purpose is to outline how a person may earn credits toward an earlier release.

That response reveals the catch-22 in plain language. The facility admits inmates can earn early release under the MRRA, while simultaneously refusing to adjust wait lists to make that possible. That contradiction is precisely what puts Faribault and the DOC in violation of the law.

Commissioner Paul Schnell and the MRRA Team have a lawful duty and the ability to create a policy that allows incarcerated people to complete required treatment and programming before their earliest possible release date. They have not done so. Instead, they are ignoring what the law requires, deliberately misrepresenting its intent, and making inaccurate statements about its scope.

The result is a system where the law exists on paper but offers no real relief to the people it was designed to help.

That is why I am issuing a call to action. Please contact the Department of Corrections, Faribault prison, Commissioner Schnell and your state legislators. Demand answers. Demand accountability. With public pressure, we can get relief for thousands of incarcerated people who are patiently waiting for a law that was already passed on their behalf to actually be enforced.

This opinion piece was written by an incarcerated person at Faribault Prison.