Bill SF2468, HF1590

Author
Ashiiyah Alexander
Winona Area Public Schools
House

Essay

Ashiiyah Alexander

Model Legislation 2025

SF2468 Pro-Con Essay 

                                                                     Pro-Con Essay 

SF2468 is a bill that defines malicious punishment as any intentional act by a parent, guardian, or caretaker that involves unreasonable force or cruel discipline toward a child, which is deemed excessive. This bill  aims to strengthen penalties for the malicious punishment of children, emphasizing the seriousness of such offenses in Minnesota. The Minnesota Legislature has enacted amendments to address the issue of malicious punishment of children, specifically regarding mandatory minimum sentences for offenders. 

•  Gross Misdemeanor: If the punishment causes less than substantial bodily harm, the offender may face up to 364 days in jail or a fine up to $3,000 or both.
• Enhancement to a Felony: Repeat offenders face one to five years of imprisonment and fines up to $10,000 or both.

1. If the punishment is to a child under the age of four and causes bodily harm to the head, eyes, neck, or otherwise causes multiple bruises to the body, the person shall be committed to the custody of the commissioner of corrections for not less than a year, nor more than five years and may be sentenced to a payment of a fine of $10,000 or both.
2. Substantial Bodily Harm: Offenders causing substantial harm may also receive one to five years of imprisonment and fines up to $10,000 or both.
3. Great Bodily Harm: For acts resulting in great bodily harm, penalties include two to ten years of imprisonment and fines up to $20,000 or both.

Pros (3)

•  Sends a strong, consistent message: Mandatory minimums ensure that all individuals convicted of the specific child punishment offense receive a significant penalty, signaling that society takes child abuse seriously.
• Ensures accountability for severe crimes: For particularly heinous acts of child abuse, mandatory minimums prevent offenders from receiving overly lenient sentences. This helps ensure that the punishment reflects the severity of the crime and society's condemnation of the behavior.
• Protection of Vulnerable Victims: Mandatory minimums are designed to protect those who are most vulnerable, like children, who are less able to defend themselves or report abuse. For crimes where victims are especially powerless, supporters argue that the law must provide an absolute guarantee of a serious penalty to protect them.

Cons (3)

• Removes judicial discretion: Judges are often elected to use their expertise to consider individual circumstances, such as the offender's criminal history, intent, and personal background. Mandatory minimums remove a judge's ability to consider mitigating factors, forcing a "one-size-fits-all" approach to complex cases.
• Leads to unjust and disproportionate sentences: The inflexible nature of mandatory minimums can lead to sentences that do not fit the individual facts of a case. This can result in overly harsh penalties for less culpable individuals or those with a traumatic history.
• Shifts power to prosecutors: Mandatory minimums transfer significant power from judges to prosecutors, who decide which charges to file. A prosecutor can use the threat of a harsh mandatory sentence as leverage to coerce a guilty plea, creating a "trial penalty" for those who exercise their right to a trial.