« Latest (double) issue of FSR covers "The Tyranny of the Trial Penalty": An introduction | Main | "IQ, Culpability, and the Criminal Law’s Gray Area: Why the Rationale for Reducing the Culpability of Juveniles and Intellectually Disabled Adults Should Apply to Low-IQ Adults" »
June 5, 2019
Spotlighting the "modern-day gulags" that hold sex offenders indefinitely in "civil commitment"
A helpful reader made sure I did not miss this new extended Washington Spectator piece headlined "Modern-Day Gulags In the Golden State." I recommend the full piece, which gets started this way:
Back in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the practice known as civil commitment was legal. This meant that 20 states — which had passed laws permitting the ongoing incarceration of sex offenders — could continue to keep the men confined even after they completed their prison terms. (See “Sex Crimes and Criminal Justice,” from the May 2018 issue of The Washington Spectator, available here.)
All it took (and still takes) is for two psychologists to claim the men might commit a new crime and a judge to say their cases can move forward. They are then labeled sexually violent predators (SVPs) and reincarcerated in prisonlike facilities until new trials are held — supposedly to determine if they will be civilly committed or released. The result? Some men have been waiting for their day in court for 15 to 20 years. In the meantime, many have died.
No matter that the men already served their prison time. Or that psychologists, psychiatrists and lawyers I interviewed insist that very few should be confined — that instead, the vast majority, many of whom are elderly or ill, should be let out.
Eric Janus, former president and dean of Mitchell Hamline Law School in St. Paul, Minn., says that continuing to incarcerate the men to comfort fearful constituents doesn’t make the public safer. The bottom line? “I’ve never seen numbers that show there are fewer sex offenses or re-offenses in the 20 states that have the SVP laws than in the other 30 states that don’t,” Janus says.
Then why are roughly 2,500 men still stashed away across the country? Locking up sex offenders is always good politics, but it is also extraordinarily profitable. And since California has the biggest budget and locks up the biggest number — three times the next three states’ combined — the Golden State offers the biggest boondoggle to explore.
To document a system awash in double-talk and dollars, I interviewed 45 lawyers, psychologists, psychiatric technicians, rehabilitation therapists, nurses, journalists, prison reform advocates and civilly committed men over eight months. Nearly all feared retaliation and asked not to be named.
As the first paragraph above indicates, this is the second piece in a series, and folks should be sure to also check out this first piece "Sex Crimes and Criminal Justice."
June 5, 2019 at 09:08 AM | Permalink
Comments
When you lock up a former sex offender after he or she has served his or her time, what incentive does that individual have in not targeting correction officers and staff for murder or hostage-taking? We just had an incident at Moose Lake, MN, where a civally committed detainee stabbed and assaulted a male staff member several times causing permanent trauma for that staff member. The detainee got a long prison sentence for that but probably doesn't care as regular prison to him is probably no worse than civil commitment. What does he have to lose?
Posted by: William R. Delzell | Jun 6, 2019 9:54:14 AM