Conference discusses changes to sex crimes penalties

Recently, a conference was held at William Mitchell College of Law that discussed potential changes to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Commissioner Lucinda Jesson of the Department of Human Services, the agency responsible for carrying out the program, as well as legislators from both parties attended. The state is currently facing serious issues in the treatment of sex offenders.

When someone is convicted of a serious sex crime in Minnesota, the offender may be held at one of two treatment facilities within the state after he or she has completed a prison term. There is no end date on the length of the confinement, and to date, no one who has been placed into the MSOP has ever been released.

While many present agreed that there are serious problems with the program that need to be addressed, there still is uncertainty on how best to move forward. Those who are critical of the current MSOP feel that it violates people’s civil rights due to the potentially never-ending confinement.

Officials from other states were on hand to discuss potential release options, which include the use of GPS tracking devices, frequent monitoring by law enforcement post-release, as well as the use of judges to determine if an offender can be removed from the program. Releasing offenders would help save costs and eliminate any constitutional concerns that might arise.

However, not everyone is in favor of releasing offenders from the program. One proposal at the conference would increase prison sentences substantially for those who have been convicted of more serious sex crimes.

Changes to the MSOP will be coming, but no one knows how or when. As various options are discussed and considered, it will be important to stay informed to understand the potential impact on those who are facing possible inclusion into the program.

Source: Star Tribune, “Minnesota’s sex offenders — dealing with the worst in a better way,” D.J. Tice, Jan. 23, 2012

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.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
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

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.