Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.In addition to lhe notification events regarding lhe initial release of an offender from confinement, lhere <br />have been more lhan 7,000 notification events related to offender relocations following release. It is <br />expected lhat lhe number of relocations \>111 continue to increase, as offenders are subject to community <br />notification for a period of at least ten years. In 2002, lhere were 450 offenders initially released who <br />were assigned risk levels. Additionally, lhere were 300 release violators re-released wilh lhe same risk <br />level they were assigned initially, and 40 release >1olators re-released wilh a higher risk levellhey were <br />assigned initially. Finally there were more than 2,500 offender relocations in the communi1y. <br /> <br />Among the 1,021 offenders assigned Risk Level 2 or 3, there were 227 requests for administrative <br />review by offenders seeking a reduction in risk level. The risk level assigned by lhe ECRC was reduced <br />in only 12 of these cases (approximately 1% of all Level 2 & 3 assignments). <br /> <br />Of the 368 offenders assigned Risk Level 3, 185 (50%) were referred to the COooty oflast conviction <br />for consideration of civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person or sexual psychopathic <br />personali1y. Historically, approximately 44% of offenders referred for civil <br />commitment by the DOC are ultimately committed to lhe Department of Human Services for sex <br />offender treatment. In 51 % of the cases, the county determines lhat lhey cannot prove that the offender <br />meets civil commitment criteria, so they do not pursue commitment. In 5% of the cases, the offender is <br />found not to meet commitment criteria in a commitment hearing. <br /> <br />In lhe first six years of community notification, apprQ'illnately 300 community education meetings have <br />been held regarding the release or relocation of Level 3 offenders. It is estimated that over 75,000 <br />citizens have attended these meetings, which have been facilitated by law enforcement agencies <br />throughout lhe state. These meetings have provided law enforcement wilh the opportunity to inform the <br />public not only about the specific Level 3 offender, but also about the response of lhe entire criminal <br />justice system to the problem of sexual assault <br /> <br />Often, these community education meetings include a panel of professionals, including law enforcement, <br />a representative from the DOC, the offender's probation officer (if the offender is under supervision), a <br />victim services pro>1der from the community, and a representative of the local school district. A <br />representative from lhe DOC has participated most of the community notification meetings (especially <br />those outside of Minneapolis and St Paul), and has assisted law enforcement in estab1ishing a consistent <br />process for delivering information about level three offenders across Minnesota. <br /> <br />EFFECTS OF COMMUMTY NOTIFICATION: <br />Community notification has been a controversial issue throughout the countIy. Supporters of community <br />notification legislation have promoted it as a way to protect potential victims and to reduce recidivism <br />among offenders by creating an informed communi1y. Opponents have raised arguments suggesting that <br />it will lead to vigilante action and pemaps even increase recidivism among offenders who are unable to <br />reintegrate into the communi1y. Minnesota's experience so far has been that community notification has <br />been handled responsibly by law enforcement and has not resulted in the wide-scale disruption feared <br />by opponents. For example: <br /> <br />6 <br />