North Carolina unprepared for sex offenders from federal prisons

1-18-2010 North Carolina:

If states are left with the responsibility of monitoring sexually dangerous inmates turned loose from federal prisons, North Carolina isn't ready.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to prohibit federal officials from committing those offenders deemed sexually dangerous after they serve their sentences. Since 2006, federal prison officials have 105 inmates they fear will strike again as soon as they are released. Lower courts sided with sex offenders, ruling that the federal government didn't have the right to hold them.

A law passed in 2006 allows federal prison officials to petition a judge to hold any inmate found to be too sexually dangerous to release. These inmates are deemed to have a mental illness or abnormality that makes them likely to strike again if set free.

Lawyers for the offenders have argued that the law is unconstitutional.

If federal authorities are forced to back off, that puts the burden squarely on the states to figure out how to watch these offenders.

"It puts a tremendous burden on the mental health system," said Michael Lancaster, chief of clinical policy for the N.C. Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services. "Our system would become crowded with people that are difficult to treat."

North Carolina, unlike 21other states, has no law to allow for judges to civilly commit sex offenders at risk of committing new crimes. Two bills were proposed in recent years, but they got no traction.

A spokesman for Gov. Bev Perdue said her legal team is reviewing other states' sex offender commitment laws to determine whether a similar program would work here.

During a hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, some justices seemed certain that state leaders would pick up any slack in committing offenders if the federal program must stop.

Justice Antonin Scalia suggested federal prison officials write a letter to state governors alerting them about the releases of inmates considered "sexually dangerous."

"I find it difficult to believe that an elected governor or an elected attorney general would ignore that letter," Scalia said.

In fact, N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper, along with dozens of other state attorneys general, told the U.S. Supreme Court in a brief filed last year that states don't want the burden.

A chore no one wants

The Supreme Court must decide whether Congress overstepped its authority when it passed the law. But another issue dominated arguments Tuesday: Whose job is it to keep up with deviant sex offenders?

Typically, caring for the mentally ill is a job for the states. Attorneys for sex offenders argue that the federal government has improperly butted into an area where it is not allowed.

Even those states that commit sex offenders don't want the castaways from federal prisons. They say the programs are expensive, costing an average of $64,000 a year, which is more than twice the cost to house an inmate in North Carolina.

"The States generally could not and would not want to absorb federal offenders into the existing state programs," Kansas Attorney General Steve Six said in a brief filed with the Supreme Court.

In North Carolina, those with mental illnesses who are a danger to themselves can be committed to a mental hospital. But once a doctor determines they are no longer at risk of hurting themselves and others, they are let go. A judge has no say.

The state's mental hospitals are already at capacity. There is no space specifically designed to treat sex offenders, nor is there a team of psychologists on staff who treat sex offenders.

Even the sex offender treatment program run by the state Department of Correction wouldn't be of much help. That program accepts only inmates who admit their wrong, not those forced to attend. There is a waiting list to get into that program. ..Source.. MANDY LOCKE - Staff Writer