A group of Minnesota sex offenders are appealing a ruling handed down by a federal court in early January that upheld the constitutionality of Minnesota’s sex offender program.
Issues over the program’s constitutionality have been well documented on our blog. Here’s a quick look at some of the issues we’ve covered regarding the state’s sex offender program.
Minnesota Judge Calls For Overhaul of Sex Offender Reform System
Task Force Orders Minnesota To Reevaluate Sex Offender Program
Both Sides Clash Over Minnesota Sex Offender Reform
Minnesota Sex Offender Reform Report Published
Judge Rules Minnesota Sex Offender Program Unconstitutional
Minnesota Reverses Progress On Sex Offender Reform
As you can see by the bullet points, both a judge and a task force came to the conclusion that Minnesota’s sex offender program was unconstitutional and in need of reform. If you read any of the stories, you learned that only six individuals have ever been released from the reform program, suggesting that it is inefficient and leaves the offenders in a purgatory-like state where they can’t ever really progress towards rehabilitation. However, despite all the findings by the lower judges and the task force, a federal judge ordered that the program was constitutional, and no changes were needed.
Appealing The Ruling
In a petition filed last week, attorneys for the offenders argued that the Eight U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis erred when it overturned the 2015 ruling from a Minnesota judge, which had previously ruled the program unconstitutional. The Minnesota judge cited evidence saying the program violated the offender’s civil liberties by locking people up indefinitely without regular progress reviews. Attorneys are hoping to earn a rehearing before the full Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the first hearing only took part in front of a three-judge panel.
During the most recent hearing, the three-judge panel stated that the sex offenders failed to prove that the state’s actions “shock the conscience” and violated their guaranteed civil liberties. Dan Gustafson, lead attorney for the class of offenders, said the three-judge panel applied too high of a standard (“shock the conscience”) on the offenders, making it too difficult to prove their rights had been violated. He said the basic facts were not disputed during trial, which stated that the program does not perform regular risk assessments of offenders.
“There is no dispute that there are hundreds of individuals confined at MSOP that the state of Minnesota doesn’t even know if they continue to satisfy the constitutional criteria for commitment,” Gustafson said. “That was not disputed.”
Gustafson said that if the Eighth Circuit Court declines to rehear the case, he’ll take his fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
