This Editorial tells us a few things, first, that since they are still talking about Garner, such cases are few and far between. And, the answer to Gardner case lies in decisions made earlier in time and not by parole or probation folks; those need to be addressed. Secondly, given a recidivism rate of around 5% or so, registries should be limited to those folks and folks deemed a higher risk by prison therapists or parole boards. Finally, before including a recidivist in a registry, their cases need review because recidivists are not necessarily dangerous, the facts of a case should determine that, so a review system is needed. Such an efficient system would allow law enforcement to focus on those considered more dangerous, esp with today's limited parole and probation, and law enforcement funds. Civil commitment, following a prison sentence (-as we know it today-), simply is unconstitutional and needs to be eliminated. Any evaluation needs to be done before sentencing and the sentence adjusted accordingly.5-31-2010 California:
Parole and probation policies at core of controversy
Earlier this month, a sex offender named Leonard Scroggins took off his GPS tracking device, left Northern California, came down here and in the span of two days attacked four different women. He had been in and out of prison since he was a teenager. Why is somebody like Leonard Scroggins out on parole?
KERNAN: It really illustrates the limitations of both parole and GPS technology. The fact of the matter is, as a law enforcement agency, we adhere to what the court sentences these offenders to, and once they complete their sentence we’re mandated to release them to parole. I know there are many ideas about one-strike and lock them up – Chelsea’s Law. It seems to me the only fail-safe way to keep offenders from preying on our children and on our public is to keep them locked up behind the walls of a prison.
Are you endorsing Chelsea’s Law?
KERNAN: The governor has indicated that he would sign Chelsea’s Law. The department doesn’t have an official position.
The one-strike provision of Chelsea’s Law is based on the premise that sexually violent people cannot be rehabilitated. Do you accept that premise?
KERNAN: The department struggles with these terrible cases and monsters like John Gardner (who pleaded guilty to the rape and murder of Chelsea and Amber). Certainly, I understand the public’s questioning of whether these guys can be rehabilitated. It’s our charge, once they are under our supervision, to try to rehabilitate them.
JENKINS: The key is identifying who those individuals are – those individuals that may have been assessed, either through a psychological evaluation or from their history, that would fit the description of a sexually violent predator. I think there’s a lot of literature that says their behavior doesn’t change. ...
One of the mistakes that frequently gets made in the conversation about sex offenders is that we use the term too broadly. A predator is different from one who flashes. But a predator, somebody who has been identified and shows a history of that behavior, those are the ones that the system should be focused on most. I think there’s a lot of literature about pedophiles who have a primary interest in underage children. There’s a lot of literature that says that those individuals never lose those proclivities.
O’BRYAN: These are people. These are brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, friends. These aren’t just mad, wild animals running around the streets. The containment model is supervision, medication and therapy. And those three things can really do a wonderful job. You have to have educated, experienced and dedicated parole agents to be working with these people and that is something that I think CDCR, or the parole division, has really failed. So, yes, you can work with a lot of sex offenders if you do it the correct way.
Where in the John Gardner case did the system break down?
KERNAN: The fact that he got a plea bargain and was only in prison for the short period of time that he was, certainly, is probably a great breakdown in the system. When he paroled, his supervision, certainly there were errors as we look back. I don’t think it was agent errors and I certainly don’t think it was intended. I always struggle to not sound defensive when I hear people critical of parole because I think my agents are out there every day in tenuous circumstances working with law enforcement and probation and the district attorneys to protect public safety, and so it’s always difficult for me to hear people throwing them in this bucket of bad supervision. I think in the Gardner case, certainly the system failed. The agents didn’t fail, I failed. If somebody’s going to take responsibility, it should be the policymakers that have limited resources, a limited budget, a number of other challenges to try to implement policies in our state that will do what I think everybody in this room would hope, and that is that we stop people like Gardner or Scroggins.
JENKINS: In Gardner’s case, certainly the system failed in its primary objective of public safety because Gardner was able to kill two girls after he came through the system. But with regard to where it broke down, if the system broke down, I think when you look at it in hindsight what appears to have happened with Gardner is that, at his contact with the system in 2000, he wasn’t identified as the predator that apparently he is.
But the psych evaluation did identify him as a predator.
JENKINS: The psych evaluation said he was unamenable to treatment. The psychologist said, based on his interaction with him, that he felt he would be a risk to underage girls for as long a time as he remained in the community. That part was really clear. ...
But one of the points that’s not commonly understood about that process is that that evaluation at that point in time was not really a sentencing evaluation. I’m not discounting the input that the psychologist offered, but the purpose of that evaluation at that point was really to determine whether the defendant was a suitable candidate for probation.
KERNAN: If we had zero-tolerance policy and we said every time a sex offender violates a condition of parole – gets a red-light violation or a low battery on his GPS – we were going to toss him into prison for four months, which is the average violation term, and not provide any treatment and then throw him right back on the street, some people would say that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense with very limited resources. ..For the remainder of this opinion.. by Union-Tribune Editorial Board,
No comments:
Post a Comment