Appeals court upholds provisional release of sex offender
MINNEAPOLIS — The state Court of Appeals upheld a judicial panel’s decision to provisionally release a man from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, saying Tuesday that the evidence supports the panel’s findings, despite conflicting expert opinions on the matter.
Jesse Lee, formally known as Dennis Wiesinger, pleaded guilty in 1976 to aggravated kidnapping and sodomy after he raped a woman and stabbed her multiple times with a file while on parole for a prior rape conviction, according to court documents.
He was committed as a psychopathic personality and in 2007 he entered the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, which houses civilly committed sex offenders after they complete their prison terms. In 2013, he petitioned for a provisional discharge from the program, and it was granted after hearings by a special review board and the judicial appeal panel.
The state appealed, arguing that the panel erred because it relied on an expert witness with inaccurate or untimely information. In its decision Tuesday, the appeals court recognized that a different judicial panel might have given more credit to other expert opinions but that this was not the court’s standard for review.
Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the judicial appeal panel shows the evidence as a whole supports its findings, the appeals court ruled.
The state can appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Department of Human Services Commissioner Emily Piper said in a statement that she is disappointed by the decision and is exploring further legal options.
The Minnesota Sex Offender Program was recently deemed constitutional by a federal appeals court, reversing a lower court ruling that said it violated offenders’ rights because few people are ever released.
According to DHS, seven men are currently living in the community on provisional discharge, while an eighth has been fully discharged from the program.
Jason and J – First of all, while I am also dismayed when something occurs that can be misconstrued by the public regarding RSOs I am also dismayed when I hear other RSOs voice the “some of us are better than others” rhetoric. You are assuming first of all that he was convicted justifiably. I for one support that no one should be defined by the worst thing they do. There are people out there (serial killers for instance) that the public needs protecting from and they should be punished accordingly. However, once a person serves their debt to society they should be punished for what they MIGHT do in the future. Also, the public does not really differentiate the crimes – they only see the label anyway. 1976 is 41 years ago – many murders serve less time. He is still human….your kind of “monster” thinking is what the legislators think – I refuse to be like them.
Karen, while I generally agree with you on this, the crime is a bit on the heinous side… and is the exact kind of fuel that gets thrown on the fire we’re fighting. So it’s really difficult to advocate for or see this as someone who should be on the streets.
That said, the right way to have gone about keeping someone like this off the streets would’ve been a life sentence. Not committing them beyond their sentence. He attempted to murder someone and acted brutally (assuming the conviction matches the actual crime).
Was ~30 years a long enough sentence for someone with a conviction of this type? He was previously convicted of rape, after all. Then, on parole, he did it again…only introducing attempted murder this time. A life sentence would’ve probably been justified at that point. Could the judge even hand a life sentence in that jurisdiction with those conviction at that time? Who knows. But it seems appropriate.
So now we have someone who would’ve qualified as a RSO having already proved they’re capable of repeat-offense, even an increase in offense. Do we need to give a third chance? Nope. But again, should’ve been done at sentencing. Not under civil commitment. So I agree that commitment under RSO laws is already unfair and also hurts our cause because it is a nice little example our opponents will use to say “see we kept this person off the streets with RSO commitment”
Now, if he truly is quack quack nuts, there are psych commitment options in at least some states. I think that would be a legitimate way to commit someone if he is demonstrating *currently* that he is mentally unfit, with little weight placed on his history.
This guy is a peice of shit and deserves to be committed. This guy is a monster and should have been locked up for life
He’ll get out and ruin our whole movement.