Hennepin County’s new policy requiring prosecutors to consider race and age in plea deals sparks constitutional debate as it’s set to take effect despite growing criticism.
Key Takeaways
- Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty’s office has implemented a policy requiring prosecutors to factor in defendants’ race and age when negotiating plea deals
- The policy, titled “Negotiations Policy for Cases Involving Adult Defendants,” took effect on April 28
- Legal experts have raised concerns about the policy’s constitutionality, particularly its potential violation of the Equal Protection Clause
- The County Attorney’s Office defends the policy as necessary to address unconscious biases and racial disparities in the justice system
- Moriarty has already faced criticism for previous lenient plea deals, including murder cases and diversion programs instead of charges
Constitutional Questions Surround New Plea Deal Policy
Prosecutors in Hennepin County, Minnesota are now required to consider defendants’ race and age when negotiating plea deals. The controversial policy, titled “Negotiations Policy for Cases Involving Adult Defendants,” took effect on April 28 despite growing concerns about its legality. This approach, implemented under County Attorney Mary Moriarty’s leadership, aims to address racial disparities in the criminal justice system but has prompted serious questions about whether it contradicts constitutional equal protection guarantees.
The policy instructs prosecutors to specifically consider demographic factors including race when determining what plea deals to offer defendants. Legal experts have raised alarms that this approach may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on race. Critics argue that while addressing racism is important, explicitly using race as a determining factor in legal proceedings could lead to the policy being struck down in court challenges.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty implements new policy to offer plea deals based on race 🙄
"Racial disparities harm our community… Prosecutors should be identifying and addressing racial disparities at decision points…"https://t.co/QLnmUMRe80
— CrimeWatchMpls (@CrimeWatchMpls) April 29, 2025
Office Defends Policy Against Growing Criticism
The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office has defended the policy, arguing that considering race is essential due to unconscious biases that have historically led to racial disparities in sentencing and prosecution. According to statements from the office, the policy aims to achieve “safe, equitable, and just outcomes” while centering on victim healing and public safety. Proponents believe this approach represents a necessary correction to long-standing inequities in the criminal justice system.
This initiative comes from an office already under scrutiny for its approach to prosecution. Moriarty, who reportedly received backing from groups associated with George Soros during her campaign, has faced criticism for implementing what some characterize as overly lenient policies. Her office has been at the center of controversy for offering plea deals that critics claim prioritize ideological goals over public safety concerns.
Pattern of Controversial Decisions
The race-conscious plea deal policy follows other controversial decisions from Moriarty’s office. In a recent case, prosecutors opted for “diversion” instead of pressing charges against a state employee accused of vandalizing Tesla vehicles. More concerning to critics have been instances where the office allegedly offered plea deals to murder defendants that spared them from prison time, raising questions about the balance between reform and accountability.
Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis, continues to grapple with crime concerns following the unrest of 2020. The implementation of this policy occurs against this backdrop, with residents divided on whether such approaches represent necessary reforms or potentially dangerous experiments with public safety. Legal observers note that regardless of intentions, the policy will likely face court challenges that will test its constitutionality.
Implications for Criminal Justice Reform
The Hennepin County policy represents a significant test case for how far prosecutors can go in attempting to address perceived racial disparities through direct intervention in case processing. If challenged and upheld, it could inspire similar approaches in progressive jurisdictions across the country. If struck down, it may force reformers to seek alternative methods that don’t explicitly consider race in decision-making processes.
As the policy takes effect both supporters and critics are watching closely to see how it will be applied in practice and what legal challenges may emerge. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for criminal justice reform efforts nationwide and the ongoing debate about how to balance equal protection under the law.
