« The Sixth's sense on Booker issues and a notable revelation | Main | Ohio lethal injection litigation going forward »
March 4, 2007
NYTimes on sex offender confinement
In what appears to be the first of a series of articles on sex offender confinement, the New York Times today has this major story headlined "Doubts Rise as States Detain Sex Offenders After Prison." Included with the piece are a series of pictorials and this amazing graphic with lots of interesting information about civil confinement realities around the country. Here is how the article begins:
The decision by New York to confine sex offenders beyond their prison terms places the state at the forefront of a growing national movement that is popular with politicians and voters. But such programs have almost never met a stated purpose of treating the worst criminals until they no longer pose a threat.
About 2,700 pedophiles, rapists and other sexual offenders are already being held indefinitely, mostly in special treatment centers, under so-called civil commitment programs in 19 states, which on average cost taxpayers four times more than keeping the offenders in prison.
March 4, 2007 at 07:47 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d8342f766753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NYTimes on sex offender confinement:
» Sentencing Law and Policy: NYTimes on sex offender confinement from a public defender
The NYT has published part one of a three part series examining civil commitment throughout the country on the eve of New York implementing its civil commitment program for sex offenders. The costs are staggering and range from 300-500% of [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 4, 2007 12:22:13 PM
» New York Times Coverage of Sex Offender Civil Confinement from Sex Crimes
I'm sure most of you have seen the New York Times coverage of sex offender civil commitment program by now. I was traveling this weekend, so I only read the first segment today. The second segment is also available online. [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 5, 2007 2:36:24 PM
Comments
See the following:
http://www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/issues/sexoffender_attachments/$FILE/SexOffenderPolicy.pdf
Posted by: ZMan | Mar 4, 2007 12:08:57 PM
Personally, I am not a big fan of civil confinement laws. I think that while they may be constitutional, they certainly seem close to the edge. However, given tragedies such as Dru Sjodin, civil confinement for a least some offenders seems necessary. People always have to remember that these are bad people, and they hurt people. And society will act to protect itself.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 4, 2007 3:34:45 PM
Good social policy - react to one incident by locking up a whole bunch of people. Exactly what we would expect from you. The most revealing part of the story is that all these laws - which everyone with a brain agrees are a sham - were passed in response to some high-profile incident. Absolutely the worst way to make policy - see Terri Shiavo.
Posted by: Anon | Mar 4, 2007 7:41:11 PM
well, anon, Dru Sjodin is but one of many, and Terri Schiavo is emblematic of a serious issue, namely, spouses who have moved on getting to say whether someone lives or dies.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 4, 2007 8:53:57 PM
What a surprise, federalist is troubled by civil confinement, but can live with it. Why not just test every newborn and if they have any genetic pre-dispostion to anything you deem socially unacceptable we lock 'em up for life. I am interested also in your take on the absurd cost of these laws. Costs in excess of $100,000 per inmate. I for one am sick and tired of paying for useless government programs as my taxes go up. I think those in favor of it should pay for it - so, federalist, open up that fat corporate lackey wallet of yours and PONY UP!
Posted by: BernieK | Mar 5, 2007 10:48:31 AM
ah gee, another post from Bernie, where have you been?
Posted by: federalist | Mar 5, 2007 1:30:22 PM
Annual meeting of the WWW in Havana. We missed you, but someone made a pinata of you and we all got to beat it, and what popped out but bobble head dolls of Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales. BTW: Hugo Chavez says "hey".
Posted by: BernieK | Mar 5, 2007 1:43:13 PM
I'm sure you had fun with your fellow travelers. Of course, the people oppressed by tyrants like Castro and Chavez probably don't appreciate the humor.
Isn't it just like every moonbat, "Pas d'enemis a gauche."
Posted by: federalist | Mar 5, 2007 2:28:18 PM
C'est "pas d'ennemis a gauche"
Posted by: | Mar 5, 2007 2:47:16 PM
All of us intelligentsia are aware of that. But, federalist, altho quick to dip into his limited knowledge of the language of kings, shows his absence of knowledge of grammar and spelling. And, as far as being a "moonbat": I wear it with pride. If being a radical means declaring the unthinkable [as people such as Wm. Garrison and Patrick Henry did] then I take no umbrage at the title. More to the point, federalist fails [duh-uh] to deal with the issues raised by the Times article - cost and total ineffectiveness of civil commitment. And, I am curious if he feels that ALL offenders should therefore receive life sentences.
Posted by: BernieK | Mar 5, 2007 3:01:19 PM
If you read my original post, you'll note that I said "some" offenders will need to be civilly confined. Not all. Not even as many as are being confined. Just some. Obviously, someone made a mistake with Sjodin's killer.
As for syntax: "all of us intelligentsia" is a nice torture of the English language.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 5, 2007 4:09:49 PM
"a nice torture": since it is a method of extracting information with you are plainly comfortable, I am surprised you object. I would prefer a "nice water-boarding of the English language".
Posted by: BernieK | Mar 5, 2007 4:49:55 PM
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
xxx-MOVIES
Posted by: DFDF | Jul 29, 2007 1:07:49 AM
Posted by: Christopher Pryor | Sep 12, 2007 10:47:28 AM
