blog post by John Hoff
I wrote previously about the "shot across the bow" letter written by the chair of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, click here. The letter was on the subject of outrageous Level Three sex offender concentration in Hennepin County, particularly North Minneapolis, particularly certain BLOCKS of North Minneapolis which have more L3SOs than, for example, three Minnesota counties put together.
Well, it turns out there was a reply to the letter on June 12, 2013. A copy was provided to me by Linda Higgins at the recent community town hall on sex offender concentration, which has received extensive media coverage, click here. The letter, which is carefully and politely worded, could be summarized as follows:
The Minnesota Department of Corrections isn't doing anything wrong by stacking perverts in North Minneapolis as thick as cordwood. Decorum requires me to respond politely to your letter but you know and I know you can go jump in a lake. Go ahead and sue me. It's not like we don't have plenty of lawyers, some of which obviously drafted this letter and cited a whole bunch of case law and studies to impress you and make you think we can get away with this outrage, which history shows we continue to get away with.
Here is the wording of the letter. Judge for yourself...
Minnesota Department of Corrections
Office of the Commissioner
1450 Energy Park Drive Suite 200
St. Paul, MN 55108
June 12, 2013
Commissioner Mike Opat, Chair
Hennepin County Board
A2400 Government Center
300 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487-0241
Dear Commissioner Opat,
Thank you for your letter of May 20 expressing concerns
regarding housing for Level 3 sex offenders. The Department of Corrections
(DOC), together with our Community Corrections partners, has struggled with
this issue for several years. The DOC works together with the Hennepin County
Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation (HCDCCR) in the
supervision of these offenders within Hennepin County. Given HCDCCR’s
responsibility for that supervision, your interest and partnership in the issue
is both pertinent and welcomed.
Three factors play a significant role in any offender
housing decision: 1) Minnesota Statute, 2) Promulgated Rules and 3) recent
Court decisions. First, Minnesota Statute, 244.052 Subd. 4a requires that “the
agency responsible for the offender’s supervision shall take into consideration
the proximity of the offender’s residency to that of other level 3 offenders…”
A second consideration is the requirement in Promulgated Rule 2940, which
requires the DOC to involve the offender in the preparation of a release plan
in the best interest of offender transition and public safety.
Finally, there is the impact of recent court decisions
following habeas corpus actions against the Commissioner of Corrections brought
by multiple homeless Level 3 offenders. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has
directed that the department must develop a release plan that can achieve an
offender’s release from prison and housing in a suitable and approved
residence. The following cases reviewed this issue:
State ex rel. Marlowe v. Fabian, 755 N.W. 2d 792, 796 (Minn.
Ct. App. 2008) (the DOC must seek to develop a plan that can achieve release
from prison and placement in a suitable and approved residence, whether in the
county of commitment or in the neighboring county).
State ex rel. Bottomley v. Fabian, 2010 WL 2363882 (Minn.
Ct. App. June 15, 2010) review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 2010)
State ex rel. Aguilera v. Fabian, 2010 WL 18513349 (Minn.
Ct. App. May 11, 2010)
Truelson v. Fabian, 2008 WL 933543 at 3 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr.
8, 2008)
State ex rel. Johnson v. Fabian, 2005 WL 704302 (Minn. Ct.
App. Mar. 29, 2005)
(JNS blog says: You're right. The only way to settle this is in court)
An offender has the right to live in any private residence
within any county of Minnesota subject to a correction agent’s approval of that
residence. In Hennepin County, this approval rests with the HCDCCR agents and
takes into consideration such things as the residence being habitable with
adequate electrical, plumbing and heating utilities; residence is absent
obstacles that would impede supervision and positive adjustment, etc. The DOC
is responsible for the review and final approval of release plans that have
been approved by the HCDCCR agent. DOC relies upon the agent’s determination
that the proposed release plan meets the standards of good practice and the
residence is the most suitable and feasible available in the locale.
Consequently, the DOC does not “place” any offender
including Level 3 sex offenders in any private residence. Rather, offenders
select a private residence (frequently with assistance from their corrections
agent) where they have an opportunity to live due to the permission of the
occupants who can be family, friends or an individual offering a room or
residence for rent with full knowledge of their criminal history and sex
offender status.
(JNS blog says: You give the offenders a list of landlords and they pretty much choose from that list, so if you're not "placing" you're doing everything BUT placing. And, by the way, we want the list. Though we are compiling our own list of landlords who need to be sued. Does the name "Anthony Zucker" ring a bell?)
The DOC has implemented policies regarding these cases,
which promote approving residence locations within the county where the current
offense was committed, or where the offender has a significant history of
residence, employment and community support. The DOC does not encourage
counties to send their offenders to Hennepin County where entrepreneurial
landlords are looking for tenants regardless of their criminal offense. In
fact, the DOC has policies prohibiting such actions.
DOC has also worked diligently to develop housing options
for those offenders who have insufficient resources. For many years the DOC has
engaged in ongoing daily efforts to establish viable safe housing options for
offenders in need in greater Minnesota where offenders are under the
supervision of DOC agents. These efforts are designed to address the issues of
concentration and public safety. Some examples that may be applicable for
consideration in Hennepin County include:
2001: DOC report Safe Homes, Safe Communities. This report
was the outcome of DOC-initiated meetings with multiple stakeholders. It
resulted in the establishment of a multi-agency work group.
2003: The work-group demonstrated cost effectiveness of
community based housing and made recommendations which resulted in additional
funding (approx. $1.3 million per year) beginning in FY
2004 for offender
housing. This funding is directed towards: halfway houses, contract housing and
emergency housing.
2010: Created a temporary staff position to focus on
creating housing options in DOC jurisdictions.
DOC has found landlords in greater Minnesota who are willing
to enter into a lease contract for DOC housing. This DOC leased housing is used
as transitional housing for Level 2 and 3 offenders. There are approximately 17
scattered sites across the state. ISR agents provide intense supervision at
each of these sites. These sites were established specifically to keep
offenders who are committed from greater Minnesota in greater Minnesota once
they are released from prison. DOC agents work with these offenders to secure
employment and permanent housing in their county of commit.
DOC contracts with halfway houses in Hennepin, Ramsey and
St. Louis counties to provide temporary transitional housing for Level 2 and 3
offenders who are released from prison and who do not have a stable residence.
Placement in these halfway houses requires that offenders have exhausted all
other housing options and must be approved by the supervising agent. This
transitional housing provides offenders with the opportunity to find stable
housing and stable employment. In some instances, DOC has been able to reach
agreements with county jails to provide transitional housing for Level 3 offenders
who have no other housing option. Local law enforcement agencies see this
approach as more favorable to public safety than homelessness.
DOC has been able to locate housing for level 3 offenders
with significant mental health issues and developmental issues by working with
social services to ensure appropriate assessments are completed so funding is
provided.
Without question, there are a large number of Level 3
offenders residing in Minneapolis, but also without question, the majority of
those Level 3 offenders have strong connections to Minneapolis.
(JNS blog interjects: That's just a lie. It has been demonstrated that we have been forced to take a sex offenders who, for example, claims to have a sister living in Minneapolis and then it turns out no such sister exists, and a sex offender who "needed" treatment at the local VA, but then refused to go to the VA in question, and the list goes on. It's like you didn't even read the letter you were replying to or answer its assertions)
Minneapolis
contributes approximately seven percent of the population of Minnesota;
Hennepin County contributes 22 percent of the state’s population. In contrast,
several key indicators provide important context for some of the seeming
disparity.
Arrests in Hennepin County over the past five years have
made up over 28 percent of all arrests statewide.
The 4th Judicial District (Hennepin) had the highest prison
incarceration rate of all districts (30.6 percent) according to Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines Commission reporting.
Hennepin County also has a higher percentage of presumptive
prison commits for all offense types as well as a higher percentage for sex
offenses, again based off data from the Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
Hennepin County’s percentage of prison admissions has
comprised 22 percent of overall prison admissions since 2006
In contrast, Hennepin County’s percentage of sex offender
admissions has grown dramatically since 2008 from 15 percent to almost 22
percent of sex offender prison admissions in 2011.
The 4th Judicial District (Hennepin) has one of the lowest referall
rates resulting in civil commitment and, at 36 percent, is well below the
statewide average of 45 percent.
39 percent of the 295 level 3 offenders residing in the
community throughout Minnesota have either a current or prior Hennepin County
commitment.
(JNS blog interjects: Never start a sentence with a number unless you spell out the number. See every stylebook ever written)
Hennepin County is the current residence of 44 percent of
the 295 level 3’s resiging in the community throughout Minnesota.
Of the 295 level 3 offenders residing in Minnesota
communities 125 are on supervision and 170 are no longer under supervision and
have no supervision obligation remaining.
Of the 129 level 3 offenders residing in Hennepin County 57
are no longer under supervision and have no supervision obligation remaining.
In your letter you reference five specific Level 3 offenders
and indicate that the DOC is “…simply dumping this problem on Hennepin County
and Minneapolis.” We have examined each of these cases and with the exception
of one offender who is currently incarcerated in prison, the release to
supervision in Hennepin County was consistent with DOC Policy 203.018 which
directs that the following factors are taken into account in determining an
offender’s release plan: stable and appropriate residence, employment,
education, career development, corrections programming, family, support
systems, and community supervision.
(JNS blog says: I don't see concentration mentioned. Neither did the people on the recent panel. It appears your policy is contrary to state law)
The DOC has also completed several significant studies
published nationally in peer-reviewed academic journals examining Minnesota sex
offender recidivism, the positive results of programming and community
notification as well as the results from our evaluation of residency and
residential proximity. All of these published studies are available on the DOC
public website, but a brief overview provides some important points for your
consideration:
Of the 3,166 offenders released from Minnesota Correctional
Facility between 1990 and 2002 there were 224 re-incarcerated for a sex offense
following their release from prison. Only a minority of the 224 sex offender
recidivists directly established contact with their victims. For those that
did, they were much more likely to initiate contact first through another
adult. Of the few offenders who directly contacted a juvenile victim, none did
so near a school, park, playground or other location where children are
normally present. Thus, not one of the 224 offenses would likely have been
affected by residency restrictions.
The full version of this study can be found here:
Minnesota Department of Corrections (2007) Sex Offender
Recidivism in Minnesota.
By the end of the follow-up period (an average of 8.4 years
for all 3,166 offenders), 12 percent had been rearrested for a sex offense, 10
percent reconvicted, and 7 percent re-incarcerated (much less than the overall
recidivism rate for the general offender prison release population).
The full version of this study can be found here:
Duwe, G. and Donnay, W. (2008). The impact of Megan’s Law on
sex offender recidivism: The Minnesota experience. Criminology 46: 411-446.
This study offers evidence that suggests broad community
notification has a deterrent effect on sex offense recidivism. Level 3
offenders had lower rates of sexual recidivism than either Level 1 or Level 2
offenders.
The full version of this study can be found here:
Without a doubt, public safety is of primary importance to
all of us. We look forward to working with you, other stakeholders and
community partners in our efforts to address the sex offender residency issue.
We are available to meet with you to discuss the information contained in this
letter and possible strategies for mitigating your concerns of the
concentration of sex offenders in Minneapolis.
Sincerely,
Tom Roy
Commissioner
C:
Governor Mark Dayton
Hennepin County Commissioners
Senator D. Scott Dibble
Senator Ron Latz
Representative Debra Hilstrom
Representative Michael Paymar
Mayor RT Rybak
David J. Hough, Hennepin County Administrator
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney
Tom Merkel, Director, Hennepin County Department of
Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
7 comments:
Keep on whining....it will do no good
Time for litigation. They'll never get the message otherwise. Hopefully an attorney not named Clark will be willing to pick up the case pro bono given the media coverage.
I believe 180 degrees halfway house has a suggested sex offender friendly housing list and so would any other organization that deals with sex offenders......no they aren't "PLACING" them in our neighborhoods they are just --- well, you know.
No attorney will take this case. "The King can do not wrong".
The attorney that attempts it will be considered a fool.
The letter doesn't even bring things down to the 55411 and 55412 zip codes. It just uses county-wide stats to gloss over the problem.
HH, I thought it did address the north side cluster.
What the letter says is that many of these offenders are no longer on any type of supervision and under the law can live wherever they choose, without any restrictions. It also says that many of these offenders were originally residents of the north side and have returned to north side.
It further says that residency restrictions would have little effect on keeping these offenders out of the north side.
The letter shares some pretty startling facts such as Hennepin County courts has a higher incarceration rate than other counties, and that Hennepin County is pretty much filling up our prisons. The result is that Hennepin County has more ex-inmate residents than any other county.
And many of them live in the north side and central neighborhoods, where there is a significant minority and immigrant population. If you start protesting the level of offenders in these neighborhoods, you will ignite a huge civil rights problem. These people live where they do by choice. You start telling them they can't live in "your" neighborhood, and we'll return to the riots of the 60's. I lived through those years and they were not pretty.
You want to live in a neighborhood sans prostitutes, drug dealers, perverts, and where your kids can play hockey the street? Try Maple Grove. I hear the property taxes are lower too.
YOU chose to live on the northside. You get what you pay for.
Riots of the sixties? Civil rights?!!? Kill all the perverts and their supporters who love them. How is that for a RIOT? How about we kill them and grind them up and feed them to you Pete@? 9:37? Would that be canaballism?
Post a Comment