The United States Constitution’s Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The word “excessive” is ambiguous for several reasons, which causes controversy about defendants’ rights in criminal proceedings. The Minnesota Constitution better protects the accused by requiring that every defendant have a right to bail, despite the seriousness of the crime. Minnesota has adopted a two-tiered bail system. A judge presents two bail choices to each defendant: unconditional bail (which is pricier, but enforces few rules), and conditional bail (where the monetary bail is a lesser amount, but the restrictions are more significant). In general, however, the Minnesota bail system is systematically racist and problematic in granting defendants’ constitutional rights. Minnesota’s adaptation of the two-tiered bail system has perpetuated a self-sustaining, paradoxical cycle that favors wealthier defendants, revealing several social issues within the criminal justice system.
This Note will begin by reviewing the historical background of bail in the United States’ and Minnesota’s criminal justice systems. Next, this Note will delve into the current bail system, how it perpetuates the problem of over-incarceration in the United States, and how Minnesota’s bail system compares to the federal standard. Finally, this Note will discuss Minnesota’s current bail system by critiquing and analyzing its systemic discrimination. The Minnesota conditional bail system diminishes the presumption of innocence and instead rewards the wealthy. There is an inconsistency between what the United States and Minnesota Constitutions promise defendants and how the actual legal practice of pretrial release is enforced.