Now that Federal District Court Judge Frank has declared the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) unconstitutional, a commission of leaders is planning what steps to take to make the program constitutional. It was strange timing when news broke last week that Alfonzo Rodriguez, Jr. had filed for habeas corpus in federal court, on grounds alleging juror misconduct at his 2006 trial. The commission’s task now becomes more emotionally loaded, as Minnesotans are reminded once more of the tragic Dru Sjodin story. It is no wonder that Judge Frank has banned media from these emotionally sensitive meetings.
Minnesota’s draconian sex offender program didn’t emerge out of the blue. Its implementation and growth was a well-intended response by our leaders to their horror at what had happened to Dru and other victims, hoping that such strong measures would prevent similar incidents in the future. This article in MinnPost explains how judges and prosecutors came to have such a heavy hand in committing Minnesota sex offenders after the Rodriguez matter. The number of civil sex offender committments peaking at 88 in 2007, an almost six-fold increase from 2003. (MSOP’s reputation is that no one gets out of the MSOP, but apparently one man is about to graduate this week after 20 years.) The William Mitchell Law Review recently published insightful perspectives from both a legislator and a county attorney on the evolution and application of the current MSOP.
The Sjodin/Rodriguez case is not only tragic. It has been miscast as representing the typical Minnesota sex offender. Most do not fit the extremely dangerous Alfonzo Rodriguez profile, and might benefit from individualized treatment in a less restrictive setting. But as long as Rodriguez remains the unofficial poster boy of sex offenders, changing the MSOP remains an emotionally-charged task.
