They are [portrayed as] “monsters” and “beasts” [b]ut sexual predators—and our powerful reaction to them—are doing another form of damage as well. We have come to think of these men as archetypical sex offenders and have shaped our public policy responses as if all sex offenders fit this mold. We are blind to the true nature of sexual violence in our society, which is far different from what we think it is . . . . [S]exual predators represent but a small fraction—a thin sliver—of the sexual criminals in our country.
– Eric Janus
The Court must emphasize that politics or political pressures cannot trump the fundamental rights of Class Members who, pursuant to state law, have been civilly committed to receive treatment. The Constitution protects individual rights even when they are unpopular. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sagely observed, “[a] nation’s success or failure in achieving democracy is judged in part by how well it responds to those at the bottom and the margins of the social order.”
– Judge Donovan W. Frank
The case of Karsjens v. Jesson has brought much needed attention to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). The MSOP, a deeply troubling program set up under Minnesota’s Sex Offender and Civil Commitment and Treatment Act (MCTA), has expanded at unprecedented rates since its creation in 1994. Civil commitment is a scheme of involuntary commitment for the purpose of treating an underlying mental illness in order to ensure public safety. Most sex offenders are civilly committed to the MSOP for an indeterminate period of time after they serve their prison sentence. The MSOP consists of high security facilities, designed as prisons, as well as one less-restrictive facility for patients who have progressed through treatment.
Sexual predator civil commitments address only a small sliver of the sexual violence problem in our society—and at a staggering cost of $120,000 per year per individual housed at the MSOP. Regardless, Minnesota’s three branches of government are unwilling to address the program’s constitutional concerns:
Despite the Federal Court’s admonishment to state leadership to take immediate action to correct course, all three branches of Minnesota’s state government remain in paralysis. The last two governors have placed moratoriums on administrative releases from MSOP, and the state courts have repeatedly ignored opportunities to step-up judicial oversight . . . . [T]wo legislative sessions have passed without enacting necessary reforms.
The inability or unwillingness of Minnesota’s government to make changes, despite the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota’s directives, exemplifies the challenge of reforming a state system that has spiraled dangerously out of control. Part of the problem is due to societal fears and political pressure, which renders Minnesota’s government powerless to enact needed changes. The Karsjens case presents an opportunity to meaningfully reform this draconian system in Minnesota for the betterment of victims, patients, and communities.
This comment begins with a brief overview of some of the underlying theories at play in this case and why it is so important for both individuals and our justice system that civil commitment programs conform to their purported purpose to treat and rehabilitate. Next, it discusses the social considerations at play in the case, as well as a historical discussion of the rise in popularity of sex offender civil commitment nationwide and in Minnesota. Then, it provides some context to help understand the MSOP—a description of the political climate at the time of its creation, information about demographics and current policies, and a comparison with other states’ sex offender civil commitment (SOCC) programs. Then, it explores the background of the Karsjens litigation, Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ arguments, Judge Donovan Frank’s holding, and the aftermath of the court’s decision. Finally, it discusses the next challenge in this case: to provide and implement an effective plan for reform after such a long period of dysfunction.