Laserfiche WebLink
<br />>> Law enforcement has made a concerted effort to stress, in the community education meetings, that <br />harassment of the offender will not be tolerated. So far no offender in Minnesota is known to have <br />been subject to an overt act of harassment because of infonnation released during community <br />notification meetings. <br />>> Opponents have suggested that pro,iding infonnation about one offender will lead the public to <br />believe that the offender in focus is the only offender they need to wony about. To address this, <br />community education meetings include basic infonnation about sex offenders. This includes <br />informing the public about the number of registered sex offenders in the state and in their community, <br />letting them know that most sexual assaults are perpetrated by offenders who are acquainted or <br />related to the victim, and that pemaps the most dangerous offender is the one \ilio has never been <br />caught. <br />>> Minnesota's statute prohibits release of infonnation that would identifY a victim Under allleve1s of <br />community notification, victims have the right to be informed about the release of the offender and to <br />be kept informed about subsequent relocations. <br />>> One of the l11l!ior adverse effects of community notification upon released se."'\: offenders has been an <br />increasing inability of these offenders to :find suitable housing. One offender reported being turned <br />down by more than 80 landlords in his attempt to find housing. Offender's difficulty obtaining <br />housing remains the most prominent problem associated with community notification in Minnesota <br />>> Community notification has resulted in increased costs to law enforcement throughout the state. <br />This has been especially acute in metropolitan areas. In 2000, the legislature funded additional <br />positions for both the DOC and the BCA to conduct notification and registration activities, but <br />funding for local law enforcement is still quite limited. <br />>> Community notification has increased collaboration among probation, law enforcement, ,ictirn <br />services, and corrections. It has provided law enforcement with an opportunity to educate the <br />connnunity about sex offenders and to encourage community oriented police acli.vities such as block <br />clubs and citizm involvement. <br />>> At this point, it is too early to tell if community notification has had either a positive or negative effect <br />on recidivism of released sex offenders. The DOC is in discussions wilh individuals interested in <br />conducting research regarding several questions concerned with notification <br /> <br />1he DOC has studied the rearrest rates of all offenders assigned a risk level who were released in <br />1997,1998, and 1999. In those three years, 1,432 such offenders were released, of whom 888 were <br />assigned Risk Levell and 344 assigned Risk Level 2. Two hundred were assigned Risk Level 3, but <br />only 140 of these were actually released into the community. The remaining 60 Level 3 offenders were <br />either civilly committed or released to correctional facilities in other states or the Federal prison system <br /> <br />Among the 888 released Levell offenders, 37 were rearrested for a new sex offense, as were 17 of <br />the 344 released Level 2 offenders. Thirteen of the 140 released Level 3 offenders were rearrested for <br />a new sex offense. The chart below shows lhe percent rearrested for a new sex offense at each risk <br />level. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />I <br />