Further confinement?

[angelicminx]

Posted without comment. I want to see what y'all think.

Further confinement?

Friday March 2, 2007 NEWS
State leaders agree on law to confine sex offenders
Jury would assess risk of releasing inmate

By Mark Johnson
The Associated Press
ALBANY -- Dangerous sex offenders who a judge and jury decide are likely to continue abusing children after release from prison will be locked up indefinitely in psychiatric centers under a new state law announced Thursday.

Before their scheduled release, mental health experts will assess inmates to determine if they pose a risk of committing more sex offenses. A jury will then decide whether a convict is likely to commit future crimes and a judge will rule on confining the offender or putting him or her under intensive supervision after release, Gov. Eliot Spitzer and legislative leaders said.

"We in government have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect the public, especially the most vulnerable in society, from clear threats to their safety and well being," Spitzer said. "This is especially true when it comes to protecting the public from those individuals whose mental abnormalities cause them to make sexual attacks on others."

While politically popular, the latest attempt at "civil confinement" of the worst sexual predators faces a likely constitutional challenge.

"A law giving state-appointed employees and juries a role in locking someone up indefinitely because the person has a mental abnormality and may commit a crime in the future creates a constitutional nightmare," said Bob Perry of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

JoAnne Page of the Fortune Society, a nonprofit group that helps former inmates, said harsher penalties decrease the reporting of sexual abuse because they make people reluctant to turn in family members, she said, adding that a majority of sex abuse cases involve relatives.

"This is legislation by horror story," she said. "This is not a law based on evidence and doing what works. It will do precious little to increase community safety."

The agreement doesn't sit well where the offenders would be housed, either.

"There are a lot of concerns about it from a community standpoint," said Bryan Felitto, a retired state university administrator and former spokesman for Citizens for a Better Ogdensburg, home to one of the mental health facilities where the sex offenders will be sent. Two others will be in New York City and another will be Marcy, near Utica.

"There's no guarantee these people won't be released into the community," Felitto said. "Who in their right mind would want one of these near them? This is not exactly a magnet for people to move here. It makes zero sense."

The bill drew general support from Broome County officials.

It addresses what are the most violent sexual predators, and "that's a good thing for any community," said Timothy Grippen, executive director of Opportunities for Broome, a local anti-poverty agency.

OFB does not provide programs for sex offenders, but does currently have four offenders living in one of its buildings, he said.

In the past, some civil liberty groups expressed concerns that civil confinement bills did not provide sufficient legal protections for offenders, Grippen said. But the proposed new bill appears to have these protections built into it, he said. "I don't think you'll find many opposed (to the new law)," Grippen said.

Binghamton City Councilman Pat Russo, D-7th District, called the agreement "a real big step." Russo has appeared on the TV program "Sex Offender Community Update" on public access cable channel 4.

The councilman was especially pleased that a jury will be involved in determining whether a sex offender stays in a psychiatric facility or is placed under intensive supervision after release.

This means that "common ordinary people who worry about their children and grandchildren" will be involved in the decision, not just two, or three, mental health professionals, he said.

Families are going to be relieved that the highest level of sex offenders are being held more accountable, said Raini Baudendistel, director of the Crime Victims Assistance Center in Binghamton. "I'm glad to see (lawmakers) are doing something," Baudendistel said.

She also was happy that the new legislation requires treatment for all sex offenders during their prison terms and after release.

The bill, which will be introduced soon in the Legislature, also eliminates parole for some sexual offenses, mandates longer periods of post-release supervision and requires treatment for all sex offenders, both during their prison terms and after they are released, officials said.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I have some problems with this. These are:

1) How many offenders are there in New York? Just in this city of 500,000 there are about 300 registered sex offenders. Is there facilities to house them long term without running into the overcrowding issue?

2) Even though these are awful people, they still have civil rights that must be taken into account. Otherwise, there will be a large number of civil rights cases flooding the courts and subsequent release of all of them at the judgement of the USSC.

3) What is the dollar and social costs of incarcerating literally thousands of sex offenders on a perm basis? Who pays for this?

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. It does get them off the streets, but I see problems.

 

[angela146]

Two things:

1. It will never pass muster with the US Supreme Court. I don't even think Scalia would allow it.

2. We will definitely see this on an episode of Law & Order.

 

[rgraham666]

Sorry. But you can't convict someone of something they might do.

 

[SeaCat]

Sorry. But you can't convict someone of something they might do.

Ummmm, somehow I think the government would like to change this.

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

Ummmm, somehow I think the government would like to change this.

Cat

Sucks, doesn't it?

Damn! I am saying that a lot recently.

 

[angela146]

Um, if they made it a life sentence for the original crime, they could then have strict guidelines for parole.

That would accomplish the same thing. I still wouldn't agree with it but it would be constitutional.

 

[jakebarnes06]

US Supremes already approved it. Kansas v Crane

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-957P.ZO

 

[R. Richard]

Sorry. But you can't convict someone of something they might do.

Actually the courts can. A person can be confined for at least two reasons I know of. The classic case is 'Typhiod Mary.' A cook for an fancy New York family was found to be a carrier of typhoid. [She carried the typhoid disease, but displayed no symptoms.] She was involuntarily confined to a small island in New York Harbor for the rest of her life. The second case is someone who is confined to a mental institution.

 

[starrkers]

Or people in Guantanamo Bay.

What do they define as "dangerous"?

 

[Kev H]

Yep, nothing wrong or unconstitutional about confining an ongoing menace to society. I know this gets all those paranoid people's panties in a bunch, but, this will not inevitably lead to big brother, or the erosion of all the rights we hold dear--you are a reactionist if you entertain that thought for more than a heartbeat.

IMO, our society weakens everytime that fear obstucts the wisdom/prudence behind things like confining obvious madmen (madwomen? lol, don't want to exclude anyone ). There is simple wisdom in getting rid of the madmen that prey on helpless members of society in heinous ways, so if noone can stomach the one-bullet-one-less-blight-on-our-society, then locking them in an insane assylum is the next best thing. Our society is sick when issues get clouded enough to allow one more child to be raped/murdered/etc.

If you don't agree, I would challenge you to disagree without sounding like a paranoid reactionist or an enabler (make no mistake--if a lunatic does not see you against him, he will see you as his ally/condoner).

 

[SeaCat]

Yep, nothing wrong or unconstitutional about confining an ongoing menace to society. I know this gets all those paranoid people's panties in a bunch, but, this will not inevitably lead to big brother, or the erosion of all the rights we hold dear--you are a reactionist if you entertain that thought for more than a heartbeat.

IMO, our society weakens everytime that fear obstucts the wisdom/prudence behind things like confining obvious madmen (madwomen? lol, don't want to exclude anyone ). There is simple wisdom in getting rid of the madmen that prey on helpless members of society in heinous ways, so if noone can stomach the one-bullet-one-less-blight-on-our-society, then locking them in an insane assylum is the next best thing. Our society is sick when issues get clouded enough to allow one more child to be raped/murdered/etc.

If you don't agree, I would challenge you to disagree without sounding like a paranoid reactionist or an enabler (make no mistake--if a lunatic does not see you against him, he will see you as his ally/condoner).

Kev,

While I find your comments and tone to be highly confrontational I do understad what you are trying to say.

I do not like the idea of locking someone up indeffinately(sp). I do not agree with this for several reasons, and yet my own ideas on this would be contested by many here for just as many reasons as I disagree with the indefnate confinement.

Cat

 

[Kev H]

Kev,

While I find your comments and tone to be highly confrontational I do understad what you are trying to say.

I do not like the idea of locking someone up indeffinately(sp). I do not agree with this for several reasons, and yet my own ideas on this would be contested by many here for just as many reasons as I disagree with the indefnate confinement.

Cat

Oops, I often forget that people do not know me (and like to assume the worst). I am highly-opinionated, but not, by nature, confrontational, even (especially) on a board with partial anonymity. So, I appologize to everyone who mistakes my tone. That does not change the fact that I think letting people out (that the legal and psycology system agree are a continued threat) is fucked, and I'd be very curious to hear well-thought-out reasons why you feel this is not so.

 

[SeaCat]

Oops, I often forget that people do not know me (and like to assume the worst). I am highly-opinionated, but not, by nature, confrontational, even (especially) on a board with partial anonymity. So, I appologize to everyone who mistakes my tone. That does not change the fact that I think letting people out (that the legal and psycology system agree are a continued threat) is fucked, and I'd be very curious to hear well-thought-out reasons why you feel this is not so.

No need to appologize to me, as I said I do understand what you mean.

That being said I do not agree with locking people up indefinately for several reasons. The first is a moral one: Man is not an animal to be caged. (Then again I don't like the caging of animals. ) The second is a monetary one. It costs a load of money to keep just one person in jail for a year, multiply that for how many people and how many years and you get into some serious money.

What is needed is a review of our laws about sexual predation and it's seriousness. Make a determination once and for all what is predation. Is predation the sexual contact of a sixteen year old with a fifteen year old? Is it the sexual cotact between a seventeen year old and a twenty year old?

Once this determination has been made then there can be a restructuring of the criminal justice system.

In my mind, and I do not lay claim to being the most intelligent among us, I believe the cure would be something simple. Incarcerate the Predator for five years. Each year there should be a review of their case. At the end of five years either determine that they are no longer a threat to society or that they are. If they are no longer a threat then release them under supervision. If they are still a threat and there has been no evidence to show they did not commit the crime, then have them killed in either a public or private execution. (Public or private to be chosen by the victim and/or their family(s).)

Cat

 

[Tom Collins]

Sucks, doesn't it?

Damn! I am saying that a lot recently.

And yet you're having trouble writing sex scenes, cuz they bore you. *wicked chuckle*


Personally, I've always thought it was fucking retarded to put sex offenders in prison. They need to be in a mental health facility, not a jail cell. That's the only real hope of rehabilitating them.

Secondly, if they want to change it so that they can put them away for life, why not just get rid of them from the get go? I'd rather pay for a leathal injection than 40 years of upkeep for someone that is considered too dangerous to ever be allowed back into society. I know that lots of people think the death sentence is wrong, cruel and unusual punishment, blah blah blah. Ask yourself this...what's more cruel, spending 20 hours a day for 30 years in an 8 x 5 room, and expecting to get a shiv in the back at any second when you're not in your cell, or having it all be over and done? I'd opt for the latter, personally.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Using the Kansas Case cited above there are some difficult points.

First the High Court reviewed the law and found it to be "unambiguous" which is the first test.

Then cited three conditions needed to be fulfilled prior to committment:
1) The case must pass through the proper judicial procedures. In other words, the law cannot mandate committment. The law can only allow committment. There has to be a separate committment hearing.

2) There has to be solid proof that person under scruteny is a danger to himself or to others. This is a normal requirement for committment anyway.

3) There has to be proof of some "additional factor such as 'mental illness' or 'mental abnormality.' "

With this in mind, it would be nice to get all these people off the streets, but the original article indicates the new law would mandate involuntary committment for life. That's in direct opposition to condition 1) as stated by the High Court.

I could see the law being passed as a passionate public jesture, but the outcome would only be a flurry of court cases ending in the USSC overturning the law.

 

[S-Des]

Yep, nothing wrong or unconstitutional about confining an ongoing menace to society. I know this gets all those paranoid people's panties in a bunch, but, this will not inevitably lead to big brother, or the erosion of all the rights we hold dear--you are a reactionist if you entertain that thought for more than a heartbeat.

Kev, you know I don't wear panties.

I am absolutely one of the paranoid ones. I'm OK with increasing sentences for truly dangerous people and offsetting it by reducing them for less dangerous ones. I agree with Cat (sort of )...we have very convoluted laws regarding sex and consent that should be ammended some day.

When I was 19 or 20, I was playing in a band with a bass player who was still in high school. He had a friend named Jenny. To this day, she's still the most beautiful woman I've ever met in person (and pretty much had the best body). She was 16, but pretty fairly experienced (one of my friends dated her and found that not only was she sexually active, she was very active). She went with me to work one day during her summer break (I was doing delivery around the city) and asked me for advice. She had been propositioned on the beach by a 36 year-old guy (who may or may not have known how old she was). She found him attractive and was kind of excited about the prospect of going out with him, but was a little nervous.

I don't know if she ever went out with him, or if they had sex, but would he be a criminal? One worth incarcerating for life? She wanted him, and there was no way he could have known her age by looking at her. He certainly wasn't taking advantage or despoiling her, this is a girl who by that age had cheated on several boyfriends and had an infamous threesome with another girl during a party. I'm not a fan of how young kids are being sexually active these days, but the fact is, they are. To say a 19 year old dating a 17 year old is a crime, but 2 weeks later (after her birthday) she can date a 50 year old legally (with no harm to her psyche) is just ridiculous. That said, any adult who acts on the impulse to have sex with a pre teen IS dangerous and I have no problem with v-e-r-y long sentences being handed out. If it's too expensive or there isn't enough room, then lets come up with alternate punishments for some people. But picking a group that is up to interperatation and declaring the right to hold them indefinitely is a very bad idea.

 

[R. Richard]

The main problem that exists with the idea of 'pedophile' is the difficulty of defining exactly what is a pedophile.

If a guy who tries to pick up a hot looking 16-year-old girl with and adult body and a movie star face is a pedophile, then a very large percentage of normal men are pedophiles. If a guy tries to pick up a 6-year-old girl, then the guy is a pedophile. I don't know exactly where the break point is, but show me the girl and I will tell you what side of the divide she is in.

Another part of the problem is that a good prosecutor will bring the underage girl into court dressed up like a 6-year-old and carrying a teddy bear. That sure as hell aint what she looked like at the party.

Pschiatrists will tell you that there is no permanent cure for a real pedophile. They are wrong. A large caliber bullet put expertly in the back of the head is a permanent cure for a real pedophile.

 

[rgraham666]

And yet you're having trouble writing sex scenes, cuz they bore you. *wicked chuckle*


Personally, I've always thought it was fucking retarded to put sex offenders in prison. They need to be in a mental health facility, not a jail cell. That's the only real hope of rehabilitating them.

Secondly, if they want to change it so that they can put them away for life, why not just get rid of them from the get go? I'd rather pay for a leathal injection than 40 years of upkeep for someone that is considered too dangerous to ever be allowed back into society. I know that lots of people think the death sentence is wrong, cruel and unusual punishment, blah blah blah. Ask yourself this...what's more cruel, spending 20 hours a day for 30 years in an 8 x 5 room, and expecting to get a shiv in the back at any second when you're not in your cell, or having it all be over and done? I'd opt for the latter, personally.

My objection to capital punishment is the same as the one for indefinite confinement. I don't think human beings can use it wisely.

I'm not too concerned with the happiness of monsters. But, can we always determine who is a monster? And are we willing to live with the guilt of wrongfully slapping the designation of 'monster' on someone who doesn't deserve it?

Let's face it. The reasons behind both capital punishment and indefinite confinement are the same, an attempt to deal with fear and anger. Unfortunately fear and anger turn off the rational processes making it very unlikely that a wise decision will be made.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The main problem that exists with the idea of 'pedophile' is the difficulty of defining exactly what is a pedophile.

Pedophilia is a modern, western idea. In the ancient world girls were comonly married and preggers by 13. It's still that way in some parts of Africa, India and Asia. It's been the norm for centuries, not a crime. In fact, it was comon to marry within your own family. The egyptians married their own daughters.

As you recall, both Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry were up on pedophile charges back in the 50's when they married 13 year old cousins. Like I said, it's a modern, western idea based on a perverse misunderstanding of bible principals.

Molestation and rape are a different concideration and have nothing to do with pedophilia. Both have been a crime for, at least, three thousand years.

So am I in favor of committing molestors and kiddie rapers for life? Or does that constitute cruel and unusual punishment? That's the real question.

 

[Liar]

Wouldn't a more... erm... legal way to acheve the same effect be something like

a) longer initial sentences
b) parole (is that the word? eh, you know what I mean, premature release, or something) process based on the same criteria

 

[Tom Collins]

My objection to capital punishment is the same as the one for indefinite confinement. I don't think human beings can use it wisely.

I'm not too concerned with the happiness of monsters. But, can we always determine who is a monster? And are we willing to live with the guilt of wrongfully slapping the designation of 'monster' on someone who doesn't deserve it?

Let's face it. The reasons behind both capital punishment and indefinite confinement are the same, an attempt to deal with fear and anger. Unfortunately fear and anger turn off the rational processes making it very unlikely that a wise decision will be made.

That's where the psyciatric community would step in. Someone's convicted of some heinous crime, be it murder, sexual assault of one varriety or another, ect...any crime involving violence against someone else, or animals for that matter...and instead of cramming them into an already over loaded penal system, send them to a mental hospital for complete evaluation. if there are at least 4 doctors with excvelent rehabilitative histories who can say that this person should never be allowed back into society then you take the measure of removing all possibility of them ever being a threat again. Locking them up won't do that. We've all heard stories of people escaping institutions and prisons.

That's just what I think, and I know a lot of people don't agree with it, but I don't agree with them either, so we're even, eh?

 

[Kev H]

Haha, Sdes, I know you don't wear panties, unless the definition of "wear" is stretched loosely enough to include firm contact while going about other business. However, to make your point, you had to completely overlook most of my point--we agree, I'm pretty sure. We are talking about Silence-of-the-Lambs-kinda guys, not your horny, lied-to, or confused guys in concentual relationships.

I knew a guy (husband of my old girlfriend, actually), who dallied with the 16yr old babysitter, and they were stupid enough to take pics, which were inevitably found by the girl's grandmother....oopsie! He was not a rapist/murderer, though he was fucked in the head (and I was pissed because my highschool sweetheart was shat on and understandably shattered by his actions). I could never be mad or fearful enough to "throw reason out the window" (what an out-of-touch-with-reality suggestion!) and suggest this guy be put away for ever. He'd go into the penal system and it would decide what was right for his case after the psyche evaluations (in his case, 5 yrs of probation).

Had he killed her or beat her severely or whatever, and the psyche people knew he was dangerous, our current system would allow him early release so long as he was smart enough to act like they wanted him to act (sorry for actions, which is remarkably similar to sorry for getting caught), or even just kept his head down. It warms my heart to know that most people agree here--it's a shame to waste all our money on imprisonment when proven competent specialists could judge that he was unable to be reformed, and when bullets are so damn cheap. There are plenty of ways to build in fail-safes, most of them rely on common sense.

Of course, we can all dream while understanding our reality is so bad that it will never get this "just"--Rob echos my sentiment in saying there are not enough perfectly fair/wise people in this position of authority to keep fuck-ups from happening. Tis a shame. However, the reality is that truly dangerous predators are out there, and I'm glad people are electing to try measures instead of burying their heads in the sand or throw up smoke screens of doubt.

Bottom line: if nothing gets done and another child gets damaged/destroyed for life, it will be on our society's head...ours...not the Republicans', or the Democrats', or anyone else we can point the finger at...ours. And so while I am no moral activist, people who try (even bumbling around as they are) to find solutions have my support. This is a results-based support, not one driven by fear or anger, but a firm understanding in the needs of a society in this regard--when your little ones are in danger, your future hopes and dreams are, as well. Even old, childless loners can gronk that concept.