8-30-2009 California:
When news hit that Jaycee Lee Dugard's alleged abductor and rapist for the past 18 years was a convicted, violent sex offender, many were not surprised.
Citizens and law enforcement suggested that certain sex offenders, such as accused Dugard kidnapper, Phillip Garrido, can never be rehabilitated, and should be imprisoned until they die, or receive psychiatric treatment until they are no longer deemed a threat to society.
According to court records, during Garrido's first documented sex offense, he told his 1976 victim the assault was her fault because she was attractive and that "I want a piece of ass." He also had an elaborate hideout in Reno rigged with devices he used to assault the woman for hours after handcuffing and binding her with a leather strap. Authorities say that since 1991 he and his wife, Nancy, allegedly treated Dugard as their sex slave, and kept her and the two children she bore him, isolated in sheds hidden in a backyard compound.
Garrido, police said, is an example of the frustration they feel when violent convicted sex offenders repeat their crimes after being freed.
Some law enforcement officials point to states that have a Sexually Violent Predator Act -- which require civil commitments for sex offenders who have been assessed by experts as high risks to victimize more people -- as a possible solution to keep women and children safe. Nevada has no such law.
Others, like Nevada U.S. Attorney Greg Brower, say state sentencing guidelines should follow federal advisory guidelines that set out a specific sentence for offenses without the possibility of parole. That would take a legislative change, he said.
"(Garrido's) case is an example of what can happen when a dangerous sex offender is sentenced to too little time, or an indeterminate amount of time in the state system, which leaves everyone wondering, well how much time is he really going to do?," Brower said, adding that since Garrido was sentenced in 1977 to a 50-year federal term for the Reno case, the federal sentencing laws are stricter. Garrido served only 11 years of his 50-year federal term, and then served only eight months of his life sentence for the state rape charges from the Reno assault.
Brower said if Garrido was sentenced federally for the 1976 kidnapping today, "he would have served 50 years in the federal system. ... In this case, he got 50 years and does 10 ... it's outrageous."
Civil rights advocates and a local forensic evaluator, however, say offenders should be dealt with individually, and not be treated universally as terminally dangerous.
Rehabilitating sex offenders
Reno forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Melissa Piasecki, said the science is mixed on whether sex offenders can be rehabilitated. She said factors that put someone at a high risk to reoffend include a non-relative or stranger victim, having multiple sex offense convictions, and having male victims. She added that the data on the success of treatment is controversial, where some studies say it helps, and others say it has no affect.
"There is no tool that can allow us for sure to say a person is guaranteed to offend or not," she said. "But we can say if they have a high or low risk."
Sgt. Greg Curry, who supervises the Reno police child abuse and sex crimes unit, said by the time police catch sex offenders, it's not their first act. Many prior crimes go unreported, he said. "It's an on-going pattern of progression that continues to get worse," he said.
"What your and mine normal sexual behavior is not normal for them. If we try to bring them to what society says is normal, it's just not the way their mind functions. It's a powerful impulse they receive from their brain that they can't just turn off."
Curry, who was a young police officer when Dugard was abducted, doubted the 1976 Reno case was Garrido's first. "When you are kidnapping, binding and tying someone up, you are going from step A to Z," he said. "
Retired sex crimes prosecutor, Dave Clifton, who supervised the Washoe County District Attorney's Domestic Violence and Sex Crimes unit for about 14 years, said parole boards need to have the guidance of mental health and medical experts before they decide to release dangerous sexual predators.
(3 of 3)
"I believe they should be locked up forever," said Clifton, who added there is no guarantee that an offender will stop once released from prison.
Lawmakers, in recent decades, have increased the time when those sentenced with life terms are eligible for parole, he said. For example, he said those convicted of sexual assault on a child once were required to serve a minimum of five years to be eligible for parole, now they must serve 35.
Kansas enacts Predator Act
In the 1990s, Kansas officials successfully argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that its Sexually Violent Predator Act is constitutional. At least 15 states have the SVP law, which requires a civil commitment of a sex offender assessed by experts as a danger to reoffend. A jury decides if the person will be committed to a treatment facility until doctors determine they are no longer a threat.
John P. Wheeler, Finney County, Kan., County Attorney, said the SVP law "absolutely" has made Kansas streets safer. He said the advantage of the civil commitment is that, if necessary, the offenders can be watched literally for the rest of their lives. If they are instead sentenced to a life term, they are still eligible for parole at some point.
"They are committed to treatment for as long as it takes until they can be safely released into society," Wheeler said. "If it turns out to be never, then they never are released. We can try to catch these guys and lock them up for as long as we can, but the U.S. Supreme Court says we can't execute someone for rape, and can't put someone to death for prowling on young women and children. There are some sex offenders out there who can never be rehabilitated."
But Lee Rowland, coordinator for the Northern Nevada chapter of the ACLU, said the key is individual assessments that "incorporates reality, focuses on the facts and any available science to make an informed decision in the interest of justice."
"The danger we fall into as a society is making justice from headlines, rather than creating policy to make communities safer," she said. "We cannot predict with certainty who is going to do something so off-the-charts, and then treat everyone as if they have no possibility to be redeemable in society."
"I believe they should be locked up forever," said Clifton, who added there is no guarantee that an offender will stop once released from prison.
Lawmakers, in recent decades, have increased the time when those sentenced with life terms are eligible for parole, he said. For example, he said those convicted of sexual assault on a child once were required to serve a minimum of five years to be eligible for parole, now they must serve 35.
Kansas enacts Predator Act
In the 1990s, Kansas officials successfully argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that its Sexually Violent Predator Act is constitutional. At least 15 states have the SVP law, which requires a civil commitment of a sex offender assessed by experts as a danger to reoffend. A jury decides if the person will be committed to a treatment facility until doctors determine they are no longer a threat.
John P. Wheeler, Finney County, Kan., County Attorney, said the SVP law "absolutely" has made Kansas streets safer. He said the advantage of the civil commitment is that, if necessary, the offenders can be watched literally for the rest of their lives. If they are instead sentenced to a life term, they are still eligible for parole at some point.
"They are committed to treatment for as long as it takes until they can be safely released into society," Wheeler said. "If it turns out to be never, then they never are released. We can try to catch these guys and lock them up for as long as we can, but the U.S. Supreme Court says we can't execute someone for rape, and can't put someone to death for prowling on young women and children. There are some sex offenders out there who can never be rehabilitated."
But Lee Rowland, coordinator for the Northern Nevada chapter of the ACLU, said the key is individual assessments that "incorporates reality, focuses on the facts and any available science to make an informed decision in the interest of justice."
"The danger we fall into as a society is making justice from headlines, rather than creating policy to make communities safer," she said. "We cannot predict with certainty who is going to do something so off-the-charts, and then treat everyone as if they have no possibility to be redeemable in society." ..Source.. by Jaclyn O'Malley
August 30, 2009
CA- Should some sexual predators be imprisoned forever or treated individually? Opinions differ
November 28, 2008
POSITION STATEMENT ON LAWS PROVIDING FOR THE CIVIL COMMITTMENT OF SEXUALLY VIOLENT CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
9-9-1997 Position Statement:
In its June, 1997 decision in Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the use of a civil commitment process to continue the confinement of sexually violent criminal offenders who are found to have a "mental abnormality" that causes them to pose a danger to others, even if they are not found to have a "mental illness." In upholding the statute, the Court gave the states broad discretion to define mental abnormality and to determine whether a violent sex offender who has completed his or her prison sentence poses a continuing danger to others.
The Court's conclusion that the civil commitment of dangerous sex offenders who do not have a mental illness is constitutional does not necessarily mean that such laws represent good policy. The National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) believes that some statutes could have severe and negative consequences for people with mental illnesses and for the public mental health system.
Specifically, NASMHPD believes that legislation allowing for the civil commitment of dangerous sex offenders who do not have a mental illness to psychiatric hospitals following completion of their prison sentences creates the following significant risks:
Laws which provide for the civil commitment of dangerous sex offenders for purposes that are principally punitive or for the purpose of continuing confinement, rather than for the purpose of providing treatment or psychiatric services, disrupt the state's ability to provide services for people with treatable psychiatric illnesses and undermine the mission and integrity of the public mental health system.
The civil commitment of dangerous sex offenders who may or may not respond to existing treatment modalities and who will require enormous resources for very long lengths of stay diverts scarce resources away from people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness and who both need and desire treatment.
The commitment of dangerous sex offenders to psychiatric facilities could endanger the safety of others in those facilities who have treatable psychiatric illnesses.
NASMHPD recognizes concerns about the dangers that criminally violent sex offenders may pose upon release from prison. NASMHPD believes that these concerns should be addressed through sentencing or other alternatives within the criminal justice system. Nonetheless, if civil commitment processes are adopted to address these concerns, such statutes should adhere to the following principles: Statutes used to civilly commit dangerous sex offenders who do not have a mental illness should be distinct from existing statutes for the civil commitment of people with mental illnesses. Laws which do not clearly distinguish these procedures stigmatize the civil commitment process and people diagnosed with mental illnesses who receive services under a commitment process. Such stigma prevents people from seeking necessary and effective treatment for diagnosable mental illnesses.
Facilities and treatment programs for dangerous sex offenders should be administered and funded outside the state mental health agency in order to maintain the mission and integrity of the public mental health system. Confinement and treatment of dangerous sex offenders or others who do not have a diagnosable mental illness are beyond the scope of that traditionally administered by state mental health agencies.
Treatment programs for dangerous sex offenders should be administered under programmatic guidelines and philosophies that recognize the differences between these criminal offenders and people with diagnosable psychiatric illnesses.
Facilities for the confinement of dangerous sex offenders should be separate from facilities for the treatment of people diagnosed with mental illnesses to ensure the safety of others and to maintain the distinct commitment status of the criminal offenders.
If dangerous sex offenders are confined in facilities under the purview of the state mental health agency, it is imperative that the mental health agency play a significant role in determining commitability and diagnoses, treatment strategies, and lengths of stay for sex offenders civilly committed under the statute.
Laws providing for the civil commitment of dangerous sex offenders should be narrowly drafted to ensure that they apply only to dangerous and violent sex offenders who pose a significant risk to society if released.
Treatment for people determined to be dangerous sex offenders should be initiated during criminal incarceration. Treatment programs should be rigorously examined, both during incarceration and after, to determine effectiveness and to measure outcomes based on the reduction of recidivism rates.
NASMHPD joins the American Psychiatric Association in calling for an increased investment in research on paraphilic disorders and in the clinical training of mental health professionals regarding assessment and treatment of people with those disorders. In addition, NASMHPD believes that state mental health agencies should initiate and participate in broader early prevention and intervention efforts to facilitate development of skills and competencies that help all people to build healthy, meaningful, and socially responsible lives.
Adopted by the NASMHPD membership on 9/9/97.
The National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) represents the public mental health service delivery system serving 6.1 million people annually in all 50 states and 5 territories. ..Source..
October 7, 2008
Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators: Have We Gone Too Far?
2007:
Abstract:
Arguably, the most feared, despised, and punished offender in society today is the sex offender. The public is constantly bombarded with stories from the media of the heinous crimes and irreparable harm committed by these offenders. We are told that sex offenders cannot be cured, that they reoffend at a higher rate than other offenders, and that they must be punished severely. All of this has lead to a public outrage against sex offenders. This public outrage, in turn, has lead to increased sanctions and punishment directed toward sex offenders. An increasingly popular response to this public outrage is the instituting of statutes requiring the civil commitment of sexually violent offenders. This paper will examine the history and the constitutional issues associated with this practice. Additionally, the unique out-patient civil commitment statute of Texas will be discussed. ..Source.. by Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY, Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia, Nov 14, 2007
Civil Commitment: Past, Present, and Future
1995:
The history of involuntary civil commitment has been pendular, sometimes in favor as a government policy to treat mental illness, and at other times not in favor. The suspected cause of mental illness has changed throughout history and at various times thought to be due to, among other things, possession of demons, reversion to an animalistic level of consciousness, a sinful state of the soul, a chemical imbalance, and as reported recently in the medical journal Nature and Genetics, a defect in chromosome number six (at least as far as schizophrenia is concerned).
The authority of the state to civilly commit an individual for care, confinement or treatment, also ran the gamut from the absolute and arbitrary power of the king as sovereign to order incarceration, to the contemporary infusion of maximum due process of law to protect life and liberty under constitutional and state law. In the last two decades, civil commitment has become less utilized due to a number of factors, such as the Supreme Court decision in O'Connor v. Donaldson,(1) shrinking public resources, and policy changes in federal and state law. However, in recent years civil commitment appears to be making somewhat of a comeback under various law reforms in many states, such as legislative enactment of the "gravely disabled" standard, outpatient commitment statutes or increased criminal incarceration of persons with mental illness.
As the philosopher George Santayana cautioned, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. The following is a review of the past and a glimpse of the future for this government authority to treat certain individuals with mental illness.
A Brief History of Civil Commitment:
Greek philosophy, government, and culture are the primary precursors to our own social and legal practices of civil commitment today. The formulation of the so-called "insanity defense," the use of the "asylum" as a place of rest, serenity and recuperation for the mentally ill, and definition of the basic principles of "informed consent," democracy, and the essential powers of the state, were all originally formulated in ancient Greece and these fundamentals have changed very little since then. Indeed, many of the Greek concepts and even terminology are still frequently used in court decisions and laws two and a half millennia later.
The insanity defense, i.e., the forgiveness of criminal liability due to presence of a mental illness which impairs judgment or behavior, can be found in ancient Greek mythology. In the extensive myths concerning the demi-god Hercules, he is said later in his life to have killed his wife and three children due to a curse from the goddess Hera. Despite this massacre being witnessed by the town's people, he was nevertheless deemed to be nonculpable due to the mental confusion caused by the curse. That is, he was truly unaware that his acts were wrong and/or he was unable to conform his conduct to the law. This is precisely the formula of the modern "insanity defense." Accordingly, Hercules was found to be in need of care and treatment by his best friend, Amphitryon, and the townspeople, and he was given sympathetic counseling to prevent his own subsequent attempted suicide upon regaining his mental competency and realizing what he had done.(2)
The father of medicine, Hippocrates, thought that mental illness was an organic sickness and not caused by a possession by demons. Moreover, he recommended that the treatment of mental illness should be conducted in an asylum, i.e., a secure and safe retreat from the chaos, pressures and impure environment of crowded urban centers rather than having persons with mental illness whipped in public, or incarcerated in dungeon-like buildings.
..for the rest of the research.. by An Address by Paul F. Stavis at the National Conference of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Washington, D.C. July 21, 1995
October 20, 2007
SEXUAL PREDATOR COMMITMENT LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES: 1998 UPDATE
September 1998
Twelve states have statutes that authorize the confinement and treatment of highly dangerous sex offenders following completion of their criminal sentence: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. These laws are commonly referred to as "sexual predator" laws. This report describes sexual predator laws and compares several of their key provisions.
As of the summer of 1998, more than 520 sexual predators have been committed in these 12 states. Sexual predator laws conform in many aspects. Key similarities include the following:
· Commitment follows a criminal sentence.
· The laws target repeat sex offenders.
· Evidence regarding the individual’s likelihood of future violence is central to decisionmaking.
In comparing state statutes, some differences emerge:
· Most states require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal proceedings as the burden of proof for commitment; others use the lower standard of "clear and convincing evidence."
· A few states specifically provide that juveniles are eligible for commitment, while
others stipulate that petitions can only be filed on persons who are 18 years of age
or older.
· California’s law calls for a time-limited confinement of two years, while the remaining eleven states authorize indeterminate periods of commitment.
The earliest statutes, in Washington and Kansas, were quite similar, although each law has been slightly modified since its passage. With the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1997 upholding the constitutionality of Kansas' law, the next wave of statutes is likely to show more individuality.
In 1998, legislative proposals for post-release confinement of sexual predators were introduced in at least 21 states. ..more.. by Roxanne Lieb and Scott Matson
