Make Payment
Call Today
(952) 913-1421
Call Today
(952) 913-1421

Questions raised over federal sex offender law – Part 2

During our last post, we briefly gave an overview of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and spoke about some consequences of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) portion of the federal law.

The federal sex offender registry has raised questions about sex crime punishment and rehabilitation and has grown state registries and burdened law enforcement departments.

Critics of sex offender registries have long questioned their effectiveness and believe registries can destabilize sex offenders. Those who support registries argue they provide public safety benefits.

A public policy consultant for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers says registries generally create roadblocks to successful sex offender treatment, supervision and management. The consequence can be isolation and offenders who return to a community need a strong support network built on family, religious institutions and work opportunities. A registry available to the public creates a stigma that inhibits work opportunities, living among families and creating faith-based relationships. The end result is that an individual may reach an emotional place where they are likely to reoffend.

There is also a misconception about the purpose of sex offender registries. Many people believe registration notification programs are meant to reduce future offenses; they are not. Public registries are instead meant to primarily be a law enforcement tool and a tool to help the public protect themselves according to the director of Ohio’s Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking. In addition, registries do not list everyone who is a threat since all future offenders are not known to police.

Though critics and supporters of registries disagree about rehabilitation and future offenses, both camps agree that registries are important to help monitor truly egregious sexual offenders if they are allowed back into the community.

Source: CNN.com, “Five years later, states struggle to comply with federal sex offender law,” Emanuella Grinberg, 7/28/11

Max Keller image
Attorney Max Keller
Max Keller

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Experience: Practicing since 1997
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

Person using smartphone with blurred police lights background. charged with a drug crime based on text messages

Can You Be Charged With a Drug Crime Based on Text Messages Alone?

You can be charged with a drug crime based on text messages alone in Minnesota, especially when the messages show intent to purchase, sell, distribute, or traffic drugs. Prosecutors often use text messages to demonstrate intent to commit a drug crime, show a history of drug activity, link you to a specific phone, and corroborate physical evidence. Text messages often strengthen the probable cause required for the police to arrest and charge you. They are, however, not sufficient for a conviction without compelling supporting physical evidence.
Handcuffed man in beanie looking distressed during interrogation. police lie to you during an interrogation

Can the Police Lie to You During an Interrogation in Minnesota?

Criminal defendants who interact with police officers for the first time are often left wondering, “Can the police lie to you during an interrogation?” Police officers can lie to you during an interrogation. In fact, deception is a lawful and fully permitted police technique provided the officers do not use it to force a confession. Police often claim possession of non-existent evidence or witnesses to trick you into disclosing information that can aid their investigation.