State may loosen grip on sex offenders

STAR TRIBUNE
By PAUL McENROE, Star Tribune
In a rare step, state officials have recommended supervised release for two violent sex offenders who are under indefinite commitment at a state treatment center in St. Peter, according to documents and authorities familiar with the cases.

The recommendations -- the first of their kind in nearly 15 years -- reflect an emerging shift in thinking among officials in charge of Minnesota's controversial sex offender program. Created in 1994, it allows the state to hold offenders indefinitely -- for years, even decades -- at highly secure facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter.

Officials familiar with the cases contend that the state must find a new balance between ensuring public safety and acknowledging the rights of offenders who have submitted to long detention and completed therapy. The shift, which emerged from closed sessions last year, occurs against a backdrop of explosive growth in the program's population and costs. The state's offender population has tripled since 2003 -- to 605 people last year -- making Minnesota first per capita among states in confining sex offenders and third overall in offender population, behind California and Florida.

But officials, clinicians and legal experts say their main concern is that the program might not withstand new court challenges over the constitutionality of holding offenders for years without the prospect of release.

Nonetheless, the prospective release of John Rydberg, 68, and Thomas Duvall, 55, is sure to reignite debate over public safety and the effectiveness of therapy for violent, chronic sex offenders.

Rydberg and Duvall have extremely violent backgrounds, with dozens of sexual offenses that include rape by knifepoint, and they are considered high risks for sexual recidivism, according to state documents. Each has previously failed sexual treatment programs, records show, and both have been diagnosed as psychopathic personalities. If released, they would be subject to covert surveillance, lie detector tests and GPS tracking via electronic ankle bracelets.

In two closed sessions last year, a special review board of mental health experts appointed by the Department of Human Services concluded that Rydberg and Duvall had progressed well enough after years of treatment to be provisionally discharged into strictly supervised halfway houses in the Twin Cities, according to sources and documents. The board consists of an attorney, a psychiatrist and a social worker or psychologist.

Their recommendation must be reviewed by a three-judge appeals panel appointed by the state Supreme Court. The judges will hear Rydberg's case in March and Duvall's in April.

The professionals' recommendation seems to chart a new direction in state policy and offers fresh hope to offenders who have clinically progressed to a point where they are judged to be of manageable public risk.

In 2003, Gov. Tim Pawlenty issued an executive order stripping the Human Services commissioner of authority over such releases. That shifted responsibility for the difficult decisions to the judicial branch of government, but it left many offenders feeling that they had to overcome nearly impossible obstacles to release.

Pawlenty issued the order after the Star Tribune reported that state officials were seeking ways to allow some offenders -- deemed less dangerous after treatment -- to live in community halfway houses. Rydberg and Duvall have sued the state in years past, arguing for release because they completed their treatment programs in a secured facility.

Attorneys representing offenders have argued that Pawlenty's order violated state law and interfered with the expertise of treatment specialists who rely on clearly delineated psychological and medical evaluations.

"It's clear this recommendation reflects a different policy,'' said Eric Janus, president of the William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul and an expert on the legal issues surrounding sex offender release. "The legitimacy of the program depends on a bona fide system for determining when individuals can be returned to the community with appropriate safeguards. A system that never returns anybody into the community is unconstitutional.''