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


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

Collection of recent articles….

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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

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.

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

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….

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….

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..

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.