ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


MN: 50-year conditional release or probation terms for sex offenders


A bill for an act relating to public safety; requiring sex offenders to serve 50-year conditional release
or probation terms; establishing intensive probation for certain sex offenders;

Read the full bill



Join the discussion

  1. Joe123

    That’s 50 years of paying probation fees and ensuring Probation Officers their jobs? Seems clear why they’d wanna pass something so vile. Politicians: the True Scumbags of America.

    • Hmmm...

      What “treatment” program is behind the scenes, lobbying for this bill to pass?

  2. Anonymous

    What happens if say within the first 5 years, the ex offender rebuilds their life, Better job, mitigates risks etc, etc., etc?

  3. Lake County

    “During phases I, II, III, and IV, the offender must spend at least 40 hours a week
    performing approved work, undertaking constructive activity designed to obtain employment,
    or attending a treatment or education program as directed by the agent. An offender may
    not spend more than six months in a residential treatment program that does not require the
    offender to spend at least 40 hours a week performing approved work or undertaking
    constructive activity designed to obtain employment.”

    And how exactly are all these offenders supposed to find a job? Who will hire them all? There is so much about this bill that is impossible to enforce and will also require the probation department to have their funding and staff greatly increased to comply with this law.

    Minnesota must have a lot of excess money if they are considering this law.

  4. AJ

    This bill is quite a hard turn from where MN has traditionally been regarding RCs. IIRC, currently Tier I is LE-only, Tier II LE and “need to know” entities (schools, daycare, etc.), and Tier III public dissemination. Also, I don’t recall MN’s recidivism being out of hand or statistically excessive, so why the sudden need to change things? I guess the judges are being too “lenient” for the legislators’ minds? Maybe judges are considering the facts and are making rational decisions, unlike what legislatures seem to do anymore.

    I kind of wonder if they’re trying to “get ahead” of what they see happening in the courts. Since courts are striking more and more aspects of registries, this is perhaps their response.

    Crazy stuff, to say the least. Hopefully if passed, the first person receiving the sentence files a lawsuit. Sure seems Cruel & Unusual, using the rational of Judge Matsch in Millard.

    Thankfully there’s no companion bill in the MN Senate (yet). This bill was authored by two single, old, first-term white guys and a stay-at-home mom. Great.

    • Civil Commitment companion?

      Is this a possible end around run for allowing civil commitment whereby making it difficult for those who need to satisfy these requirements cannot meet them and, thus, keeping them committed? Just a thought.

  5. R M

    It seems that when one state starts to understand that sex offense registries don’t work, 2 or 3 other states go the opposite direction and make the penalties harsher.

    Why does the same crime committed in different states have different penalties? And better yet, why can’t people see that new offenses are mostly NOT committed by registered sex offenders when there are multitudes of research that support this?

    I just don’t understand the ignorance of people.

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 or other website issues 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 *