ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings
Q4: [details]

Other Events
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

General News

MN: Minnesota’s Rational Indefinite Commitment of Sex Offenders

Minnesotans who receive the label “sex offender,” and are determined either a “sexually dangerous person” or “a person with a sexual psychopathic tendency,” now face the potential for life incarceration in a civil commitment facility. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held the North Star State’s policy of locking up allegedly dangerous persons for an indeterminate period of time is completely rational and rooted in legitimate government interests. Full Article

Related

MN: Appeals Court – Sex Offender Program Constitutional (ACSOL)

Collection of recent articles….

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/01/06/minnesota-sex-offender-program

http://www.startribune.com/let-s-use-court-ruling-to-look-anew-at-msop/409940485/

http://www.startribune.com/civil-commitment-ruling-a-setback-for-civil-rights-reforms/409940215/

http://www.postbulletin.com/opinion/our_view/our-view-sex-offender-program-still-needs-reform/article_8c195f7f-7a43-5b9d-9794-8e05ce7c966d.html

http://www.startribune.com/appeals-court-got-it-wrong-in-upholding-indefinite-commitment-of-sex-offenders/409835015/

Join the discussion

  1. abolishtheregistry.com

    Locking up Japanese in internment camps was considered a government interest too. Old ideas are new again! Gotta love recycling…

  2. New Person

    A quote from the article:

    Yes, the Eighth Circuit admitted civil commitment was a “significant deprivation of liberty.”

    Crazy that was basically the admission of the court!

    The rational basis has no scientific base support for it, whereas the countless recordings of low recidivism rates are synonymous in results.

    Fear mongering vs Scientific fact finding. That’s basically what this has come down to… Michigan decision vs Others.

    • abolishtheregistry.com

      Even an ounce of liberty stolen is significant. That’s how it should be looked at but we see it dealt with in degrees by the courts.

      So the judge sees it as liberty lost yet rules it needed anyway. That’s what we get when we worship at the alter of government. Both republicans and democrats, in office and the voters, are guilty of it.

  3. mike r iscensored

    so I guess freedom is no longer a fundamental right so it only takes a rational basis review in order to be constitutional….

    • David Kennerly's Rational Basis

      Here is a quick reminder of what the “Rational Basis” standard is, or should be:

      “Rational basis review is a test used in some contexts to determine a law’s constitutionality. To pass rational basis review, the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Rational basis is the most lenient form of judicial review, as both strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny are considered more stringent. Rational basis review is generally used when in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue.

      Let us dwell upon that last little bit for a moment: “…is generally used when [sic] in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue. ”

      Does this fit the circumstances under consideration here? I think not!

      This is from Cornell University:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis

      • Timmr

        It is in that genera of streamline processes that produced the IML with only a hand vote — no civil rights violations to consider here , just a routine decision like funding the congressional cafeteria. Funny how they can class a whole group of people into having no civil rights without even addressing evidence for that claim. Sounds like an attainder, doesn’t it?

  4. mike r iscensored

    this ruling should terrify anyone who reads it..based on this ruling the government can lock up anyone indefinitely if there is a rational basis linked to protecting public safety. ie. drunk drivers,drug dealers,gang bangers,assault suspects,domestic violence abusers,just to name a few…there is more of a rational basis for those categories of offenders who have a exponential rate of recidivism compared to ex sex offenders and who’s crimes are just as heinous in most cases and more heinous in a lot of them…scary ruling indeed….

    • Timmr

      Mike r you hit it. This is terrifying. It is state sponsored terrorism. Trump should stop anyone in Minnesota from entering the free United States.

    • abolishtheregistry.com

      Yep and that includes close to a million rso’s. Seeing as how the high and frightening lie is being allowed to continue. Don’t mind us though, huh Mike r? We’re just bitching about nothing lol

  5. mike r iscensored

    these terrorist (judges) should be immediately removed from their official capacities and be barred from being any type of an official of the courts or public office….this is another blatent disregard for the Constitution and an act of war against US citizens…if this holds true for ex sex offenders then it needs to apply to any and all persons ever convicted of a crime…internment camps under the guise of medical or psychiatric facilities here we come….

  6. mike r iscensored

    man after reading this decision more closely im blown away by the fact that these so called justices seem to think that in order for a statute to be unconstitutional it must not only violate a fundamental right but it must shock the conscience..since when did the threshold for a violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause become the standard of review for determining what level of scrutiny the courts apply in any constitutional challenge?? this is absolutely insane..

  7. mike r iscensored

    yeah we’re just crying right? you know whats really odd about some of these suits is the fact that they don’t mention the fact that these laws are unjustifiable and that they are all based on the pretext of frightening and high recidivism rates…the Michigan case is the first and only instance that the facts have been presented and what happened? the court agreed in very strong words and the issue wasn’t even presented with much force or a bombardment of empirical evidence..there is no way the courts could worm out of the unjustification or the equal protection clause and especially the right to reputation that has already been determined by the courts to be a fundamental right that is actually being violated by the registration scheme..why wont somebody take what has proved successful and what scotus and even the California supreme Court has hinted at in every way besides coming right out and saying it, and run with it.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *