Sex Offender “graduates” from controversial rehabilitation program

“Do the crime, do the time” is a staple of American criminal justice. So, the concept of confining people beyond the length of their sentence is unsettling. In Minnesota, “civil confinement” is mandated where someone is considered a public danger and unable to act within the constraints of the law. It was used to keep people inside psychiatric hospitals in the first half of the 20th century and it is used today to keep sex offenders behind bars.

For a “civil confinement” program to be constitutional, it must focus on treating the sex offender to eventually reintegrate them into society, rather than on punishment. It is a fine line. Far too often the offender can’t be “cured” of his compulsions and remains confined indefinitely.

Turning to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (or “MSOP”), most people never graduate that is until Mr. Oliver D. He was convicted of raping two women in 1995 and spent 14 years behind bars. In 2009 his sentence was up and he was transferred to the MSOP for treatment. The MSOP was established in 1995 as a way to treat sex offenders of their compulsions, to reintegrate them into society.

The program’s requirements are so strict that very few ever graduate. The inmates are constantly monitored and in a very structured environment, making it easy to fail. But Mr. Oliver D. steadily advanced through the program and never relapsed. He is only the fourth person to graduate and he did it in only a few years. To compare there are more than 700 people committed in the MSOP, some of which have been there for over 20 years.

The program is being challenged by numerous inmates as being unconstitutional. The Minnesota government counters that the Constitution does not require a treatment strategy that guarantees eventual release. The inmates were successful in the District Court and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal will hear arguments later this year.

Mr. Oliver D. will not have an easy time on the outside as he is under intense supervision, has strict reporting requirements and is still on the Sex Offender Registry. If he fails to comply with any of these requirements he could be immediately sent back into the MSOP for additional “treatment.”

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.