Rhino
07-11-2006, 08:59 AM
Critics Look For Alternative to Sex Offender Civil Commitments
Monday, July 10, 2006
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
WASHINGTON — Learning that a child has been abducted by a predator who was just let out of prison is a state official's worst nightmare.
So states have been under pressure to create laws to keep violent sexual predators off the street. No law, however, seems to be as controversial as that which allows civil commitments, a term describing the confinement of sex offenders to mental health facilities after they've completed their prison sentences.
The purpose of civil commitments is to attempt treatment on prisoners who are considered liable to commit their crimes again, and to release them after they have been deemed safe for society. For many of the country's most heinous offenders, this could mean a life sentence in lock-up.
While civil commitments is a popular idea for many law-abiding citizens, critics are grappling with the implications. They say, ethically and even constitutionally, these convicts should either be let go after doing their time or given longer minimum sentences at trial.
"We think [civil commitment] is the wrong way to go," said Michael Rushford, president of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif. "Not because they shouldn’t hold on to these people, but we see it as a cumbersome way to do it."
"You don't want to mix violent sexual predators with people who have severe mental disorders," said Jeff Keller, deputy director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness of New York State.
"We understand that these people are dangerous and violent and shouldn’t be walking on the street, but we don’t want them thrown in with the mentally ill," he said.
Still other opponents, like the American Civil Liberties Union, say that civil commitments could lead to unfair confinements, taking sentencing out of the hands of a judge and jury and putting it into the hands of state lawmakers.........http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202874,00.html
Monday, July 10, 2006
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
WASHINGTON — Learning that a child has been abducted by a predator who was just let out of prison is a state official's worst nightmare.
So states have been under pressure to create laws to keep violent sexual predators off the street. No law, however, seems to be as controversial as that which allows civil commitments, a term describing the confinement of sex offenders to mental health facilities after they've completed their prison sentences.
The purpose of civil commitments is to attempt treatment on prisoners who are considered liable to commit their crimes again, and to release them after they have been deemed safe for society. For many of the country's most heinous offenders, this could mean a life sentence in lock-up.
While civil commitments is a popular idea for many law-abiding citizens, critics are grappling with the implications. They say, ethically and even constitutionally, these convicts should either be let go after doing their time or given longer minimum sentences at trial.
"We think [civil commitment] is the wrong way to go," said Michael Rushford, president of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif. "Not because they shouldn’t hold on to these people, but we see it as a cumbersome way to do it."
"You don't want to mix violent sexual predators with people who have severe mental disorders," said Jeff Keller, deputy director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness of New York State.
"We understand that these people are dangerous and violent and shouldn’t be walking on the street, but we don’t want them thrown in with the mentally ill," he said.
Still other opponents, like the American Civil Liberties Union, say that civil commitments could lead to unfair confinements, taking sentencing out of the hands of a judge and jury and putting it into the hands of state lawmakers.........http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202874,00.html