Compassionate Release : Tracie’s Law

Only after immense media and public pressure was Tracie released to die surrounded by family and friends. The fight for Tracie’s release sparked the Hope Act’s legislative push to expand Compassionate Release. Our proposed bill holds the muscle memory of that fight, and its passing would relieve some resistance for others going through the same process.

Tracie Cowan was a kind and creative person, known to delight in the simple joys in life. She also had Stage 4 cancer and was incarcerated at Shakopee Women’s Prison. Her initial release date was February 2027, but in 2025, those around her saw her condition deteriorate to a critical place. Advocates for Tracie urged for a conditional medical release.

Where Does Minnesota Currently Stand?

Minnesota’s current system for compassionate release is too narrow. Under current law, conditional medical release is primarily available when an incarcerated person has a grave illness or medical condition and the Commissioner of Corrections determines that release would not pose a threat to public safety. 

Between 2013 and 2017, the federal BOP received approximately 5,400 requests and approved only six percent (U.S. Sentencing Commission Compassionate Release Data Report, 2023). Minnesota’s clause is similarly narrow. The decision is made within the Department of Corrections, and the law does not provide a broad pathway for other extraordinary circumstances, family caregiving responsibilities, or the contingencies of aging. 

Minnesota can do better.

When an incarcerated person has demonstrated rehabilitation and poses little or no danger to the community, or faces circumstances that make continued incarceration unnecessary or unnecessarily harmful, Minnesota should have a meaningful process for considering release. Tracie’s Law would strengthen Minnesota’s conditional release system by creating clear pathways for several circumstances, including:

  • Geriatric release for individuals age 55 or older who have served at least ten years or 50% of their sentence, or age 60 or older who have served at least twenty years, and who have a chronic or serious medical condition related to aging that diminishes functioning.
  • Family caregiver release when an incarcerated person is needed to care for a minor child or an incapacitated spouse or domestic partner and no adequate caregiver is available.
  • Extraordinary and compelling circumstances, including situations such as terminal illness, debilitating injury, advanced age, pregnancy, or extraordinary family circumstances.
  • Community-based supervision that includes justice-impacted individuals, so that release remains conditional and includes appropriate safeguards.
  • Judicial oversight when the Department of Corrections does not make a timely decision.
  • Public transparency, including reporting on applications, approvals, denials, processing times, and the criteria used in decisions.

Research estimates that the average cost of incarceration in Minnesota exceeds $47,000 per person each year, while the cost of housing medically fragile or elderly individuals can exceed $90,000 annually because of additional health-care and facility needs (Minnesota Department of Corrections, FY2025 Performance Report). The proposed framework could allow eligible individuals to receive appropriate care in community or medical settings that may cost substantially less than incarceration. Estimates suggest that releasing 25 to 40 qualified individuals could save approximately $1.5 million to $3 million annually, while recognizing that additional administrative resources would be needed for medical evaluations, risk assessments, data collection, and reporting.

A compassionate-release decision should ask more than, “How much time is left on the sentence?” It should also ask:

  • Who is this person today?
  • What has changed since the sentence was imposed?
  • What evidence demonstrates rehabilitation and personal growth?
  • What risks exist today?
  • Can those risks be safely managed in the community?
  • What purpose would continued incarceration serve?