A federal judge has rejected a request by the state of Minnesota to delay dramatic court-ordered reforms to Minnesota’s controversial sex offender program.
The decision, handed down Monday by U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank, means the state must promptly evaluate hundreds of sex offenders who are detained at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) and release those who no longer meet the legal criteria for confinement. Full Article
I canNOT believe how many chances the government gets when THEY break the law of the land. Meanwhile, if one of us forgets to dot an “i” or cross a “t” on one of our registration forms, then it’s “Instant Felony” for failure to register. What a crock!!! They’ve had enough time. If the MN government continues to delay, then I say Let Them All Out Tomorrow!!!
“the state “failed to articulate in sufficient detail” the safety risks???”–
Because they can’t
“The state has argued that the court-mandated reforms are unrealistic, dangerous and expensive, costing in the tens of millions of dollars???”–
Seems the state created their own costly mess; bunch of dummies!
“In June, after a four-year legal battle, Frank ruled that the MSOP violates the U.S. Constitution by unjustifiably detaining hundreds of individuals without giving them regular risk evaluations, access to the courts and other due process protections.”–
And rightly so! They are, after all American citizens. If the people from the state hate the US Constitution so much, perhaps they should renounce their citizenship and move, away; waaay far away!
Seeing the photo that accompanies the news article, that “treatment facility” sure as Hell looks like a jail or prison to me!!!
Its about time a judge does his or her job and stands up to these unamerican unlawful makers
The state failed to articulate the safety risk huh. We need to see the opinion in this case as there must be food for the fodder for future cases if the state can’t even articulate the safety risk for these guys that have been determined to be svp at some point then how could they articulate the safety risk of non violent or convictions 10 20 or 30 years old to justify the reg.