Never forget those who have died because of various sex offender laws.
Showing posts with label ( .News-Civil Com. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ( .News-Civil Com. Show all posts

August 22, 2015

News Highlights from States with Civil Commitment

8-23-2015:

Just in case there is someone who does not know what "Civil Commitment" of sex offenders is all about you can click on this link, then come back here for the latest news from each state CC Center.

Yes, you can see all these News articles by going directly to our Civil Commitment blog, but we have decided it might be a good idea to, in our Main News blog, highlights of the latest Civil Commitment news for each state that has civil commitment. Clicking on a link will take you to our CC blog so you can read current and all prior news from that state. So here goes:
Finally, we are trying to find any support groups in these states, so if you know one please let us know to get them listed. We will update this post from time to time.

For now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

February 8, 2015

News Highlights from State Civil Commitment Centers

2-8-2015:

Just in case there is someone who does not know what "Civil Commitment" of sex offenders is all about you can click on this link, then come back here for the latest news from each state CC Center.

Yes, you can see all these posts by going to our Civil Commitment blog, but we have decided it might be a good idea to, mainline in our regular news blog, highlights of the latest news in each state civil commitment center. Clicking on a link will take you to our CC blog so you can read current and all prior news from that state. So here goes:

Finally, we are trying to find any support groups in these states, so if you know one please let us know to get them listed. We will update this post from time to time.

For now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

May 20, 2013

eAdvocate ALERT: Blog Changes

5-20-2013 National:

We are deleting our OLD "Civil Commitment" blog, and replacing it with a newer designed blog titled "Civil Commitment: Sex Offenders+" which covers all 23 jurisdictions that have laws which can commit folks following a prison sentence. This is now the ONLY place on the Internet providing such coverage.

Today if you access the old blog, it will tell you it is PRIVATE (soon to be deleted). Everything that was in it was transferred to either our "Sex Offender Court Decisions" blog or to the NEW "Civil Commitment: Sex Offenders+" blog.

Over the next few hours we will make changes in the menu system linking the blogs together, so please bear with us. Hopefully, all changes will be completed by later tonight.

For now have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

May 18, 2013

Feds lock up fewer predators after prison sentences end

5-18-2013 Washington DC:

WASHINGTON – The federal government has sharply scaled back a controversial effort to keep dangerous sexual predators in prison past their sentences after losing more than half the detention cases it filed.

The U.S. Justice Department has said its program is critical for protecting the public, but it has been beset by problems since it began seven years ago. Most of its attempts to keep accused predators locked up have failed. Along the way, it kept dozens of men in prison for years without a hearing, relied on medical determinations that proved faulty and faced a succession of legal battles over whether it even has the power to keep people locked up indefinitely.

Even as courts are increasingly signing off on that power, prosecutors are using it far less.

Neither prosecutors nor prison officials could explain why that pace has slowed. Lawyers for some of the detainees say the government appears to be focused on bringing stronger cases it's more likely to win. "They're being much more careful in the cases they're certifying," said William Webb, a Raleigh lawyer who represents several of them.

In the first two years of the program, which began in 2006, court records show the U.S. Justice Department asked judges for permission to keep 86 men locked up after prison psychologists concluded they were too dangerous and mentally ill to safely be released. In the past year, it has tried to detain only nine, including one man prosecutors had previously tried and failed to keep in prison.

Justice Department lawyers anticipate filing more cases soon. Thomas G. Walker, the U.S. attorney in Raleigh, N.C., where nearly all of the cases are filed, said he expects "a steady flow of new cases," probably totaling 15 to 20 a year — still less than half the pace when the program began.

Ed Ross, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Prisons, whose psychologists and lawyers make the initial decision about which prisoners should be detained, said he "can't speculate as to why the numbers have declined." He said the agency has not changed the way it makes those decisions, though he said the process is guided in part by federal court opinions clarifying the diagnoses and evidence that the law requires.

The detention effort targets the most dangerous and mentally ill among the thousands of convicted sex offenders serving time in federal prison. It allows prosecutors to seek a court order that will keep them in prison until psychologists or a judge decides it's safe to let them out.

"This is a very serious matter, and you don't want to do this except in cases where it's crystal clear that it's necessary," said Fred Berlin, the director of the Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. "If we're going to do it, we have to be very careful about it. You don't want to just put people in a place where they stay indefinitely."

One recently filed case involves a man who had broken into a house and sexually assaulted a 7-year-old girl, who was sent to federal prison for an unrelated gun possession charge; another involves a man serving a five-year prison sentence for trying to lure someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl into a sexual relationship. Psychologists diagnosed both as pedophiles and concluded that both should remain in prison.

Defense lawyers said they find the case against Michael McBride particularly troubling. Prison officials certified that McBride was "sexually dangerous" in 2011, the first step in the legal process that leads to indefinite detention. Prosecutors dropped the case six months later and released him, in part because their own outside expert concluded that he didn't meet the legal requirement to be detained.

Three months after that, McBride was kicked out of a New Hampshire halfway house for yelling at staff members. That was enough for a judge to send McBride back to prison, where officials again decided that he should be detained, citing much of the same evidence they had relied on a year earlier.

"It really just illustrates that nobody knows what's going to happen to them, even if they get out," said Suzanne Little, a federal public defender in Raleigh.

Prison officials also are making a second attempt to recommit prisoner Frederick Springer, even though a judge concluded last year that he wasn't sufficiently dangerous to be detained under the law. The new case has not yet been filed.

Officials have acknowledged that the predator law has not worked out like they hoped. Since Congress approved the Adam Walsh Act, prosecutors have persuaded federal judges to commit only 51 of the 132 men whose cases have been resolved by federal courts. Seventy-two cases ended after judges found insufficient evidence or prosecutors dismissed their cases. Many of those decisions were the result of flimsy evidence or flawed psychological assessments. A handful of cases are pending.

The department's more recent cases have fared better; prosecutors win more than they lose. Courts have since untangled most of the legal delays that left detainees to wait years for a hearing. Walker said his lawyers have "worked diligently to move these matters to resolution," though he acknowledged "we have more work to do."

Court records and interviews suggest that some of the people the government has successfully committed have refused to participate in treatment. One has gone to court to complain that his condition "regressed" so badly since he was committed that officials put him on suicide watch. ..Source.. by Brad Heath, USA TODAY

Read More of Article...

July 25, 2012

Judge certifies sex offender suit as class action

7-25-2012 Minnesota:

St. Paul, Minn. — A federal judge ruled today that a challenge to Minnesota's sex offender program can be tried as a class action suit.

The class action suit involves about 600 sex offenders who have been indefinitely detained by the state beyond their sentences. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ruled that hearing each case individually would have been an "enormous drain" on resources.

Sex offenders committed to the program have completed their prison sentences. They're being held under Minnesota's civil commitment law.

Bill Lubov is the attorney for Clarence Opheim, who is the only civilly committed sex offender to be provisionally released from a prison-like facility to a halfway house. Lubov said the judge's ruling will likely draw greater attention to the legal challenge.

"Whereas a single lawsuit would maybe only have peripheral interest to the general community, a lawsuit that affects an entire group of people certainly has the potential to draw the attention of everyone, especially considering the political stakes," Lubov said.

Previously, courts have ruled that the program is constitutional. But the lawsuit argues the state has not provided adequate treatment to offenders, and that Minnesota's civil commitment law is unconstitutional. ..Source.. by Jon Collins, Minnesota Public Radio

Read More of Article...

July 13, 2012

Should Sex Offender Programs Be Privatized?

7-13-2012 National:

Civil commitment: Private prison companies are raking in big bucks housing criminals ($91,000 per patient) who have completed their criminal sentences but are deemed by a court to be at risk of re-offending.

Virginia will soon decide whether to award a contract to run its detention facility for sexually violent predators to GEO Group, the nation’s second largest private prison company.

GEO already operates psychiatric and other treatment facilities in Florida, South Carolina, and Texas. Now it’s competing to run the Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation, a civil commitment center for “sexually violent predators” who have completed their criminal sentences but are deemed by a court to be at risk of re-offending.

Rather than being released at a predetermined date, these offenders are sent to VCBR for “intensive treatment.” According to the state, their “eventual conditional release” is “determined by their progress in treatment and reduction of re-offense risk.”

In 2006, Virginia’s legislature greatly increased the number of crimes that can qualify convicts for the program and changed the process for identifying which of these offenders are eligible for civil commitment.

The result: a population explosion. In January 2011, state officials warned legislators that the VCBR facility was already over capacity and that the population would continue to grow. Less than a month later, GEO submitted an unsolicited bid to operate VCBR, pledging to increase its capacity to 600 beds while significantly reducing costs.

GEO has long been active in Virginia politics. From 2003 to 2009, it donated $84,600 to state politicians, including more than $28,000 each to current governor Bob McDonnell and 2005 GOP gubernatorial nominee Jerry Kilgore. Both are former attorneys general and support tough sex offender laws.

Kilgore is now a partner at McGuire Woods Consulting, whose services GEO Care retained in January of 2011 to lobby on “matters related to Virginia’s sexually violent predator program.” As of June 2011, GEO had paid McGuire Woods $13,720.

Civil commitment is “the perfect market” for private detention companies, according to Michele Deitch, a criminal justice expert at the University of Texas. “No one’s likely to want to close them down. The inmates probably aren’t getting out. You’ve got the growing population feeding into these civil commitment centers. I would imagine private prison companies see it as a fairly safe area for growth.” ..For the rest of this story: by Siddhartha Mahanta, The American Independent

Read More of Article...

June 30, 2012

British Court Blocks Sex Criminal's Removal to US

This case clearly shows the fundamental differences in rights: European "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" and in the U.S. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." As well as HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECTED TO DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT" (Scroll down to this). His dual citizenship permits him to claims rights under foreign documents.
6-30-2012 National, Minnesota:

Britain's High Court on Thursday blocked a U.S. government bid to extradite a sex criminal to Minnesota, saying the state's restrictive treatment program for sex offenders was far too draconian.

Judges Alan Moses and David Eady endorsed 43-year-old Shawn Sullivan's appeal against extradition after U.S. authorities refused to guarantee that Sullivan wouldn't be placed in Minnesota's civil commitment program, which provides for the indefinite detention of people found to be "sexually dangerous."

The judges said that commitment to the program would be in "flagrant denial" of Sullivan's human rights.

Sullivan, a dual U.S.-Irish citizen, is accused of raping a 14-year-old girl and sexually molesting two 11-year-olds in Minnesota in the 1990s. He escaped to Ireland as prosecutors prepared to file charges, and while staying there was convicted of sexually assaulting two 12-year-old girls.

Authorities finally caught up with him two years ago in London, where he'd moved using an Irish passport that spelled his last name in Gaelic as "O'Suilleabhain."

The British judges made clear in an earlier decision that they would have supported Sullivan's extradition had it not been for the sex treatment program, which they described as among the toughest in the United States.

The Minnesota program, which began in the mid-1990s, allows civil courts to commit a person for sex offender treatment if a judge decides the person is sexually psychopathic or sexually dangerous. As of April 1, 641 people were in the program.

The High Court justices outlined a litany of concerns, noting that offenders don't have to be mentally ill to be committed; their offenses don't have to be recent; and in some cases, those placed in the program don't even have to have been convicted of any crime.

The judges added they'd seen no evidence that anyone had ever been released from the program since it began in its current form in 1988.

"There is a real risk that if returned, Mr. Sullivan will be the subject of an order of civil commitment," the judges said in the June 20 decision, adding that placing him in the program would be a flagrant denial of his rights.

They gave U.S. officials a week to guarantee that Sullivan wouldn't be enrolled in the program, but when no assurances were made, the extradition proceedings were dropped Thursday.

The program has been criticized for holding people indefinitely. A 64-year-old man became the first person to be granted a provisional discharge in more than a decade earlier this year when he was allowed to move into a Minneapolis-area halfway house. Only one other person was ever released from the program, and he was soon taken back into custody on a violation.

In Minnesota, two county prosecutors said they were disappointed by the decision. The statement from Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman and Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom said it was "not in the interests of public safety" for them to commit to keeping Sullivan out of the program.

They said they would pursue criminal prosecutions if he returns to the US.

Peter Wold, Sullivan's criminal defense attorney in Minnesota, said the British judges had balked at the prospect of indefinite detention. "That offended them, and it should offend a lot of people, to have the prospect of people being committed with no end in sight," he said.

Michael Hall III, the attorney representing the three alleged victims in Minnesota, said it was unfortunate that Sullivan wouldn't be held accountable by law enforcement.

"Now, really the only avenue available to his victims in the U.S. is through the civil courts," he said.

Hall's clients sued Sullivan in January. Sullivan's attorney had asked that the case be put on hold pending a decision on extradition on criminal charges, but Hall said he anticipated the lawsuit would now go forward.

Hall said he expected a civil jury to award "significant punitive damages" against Sullivan — though he conceded there could be difficulties enforcing a judgment if Sullivan remains in Britain. ..Source.. by RAPHAEL SATTER

Read More of Article...

June 4, 2012

Sexual predator conviction overturned on appeal

6-4-2012 Washington:

Appellate judges ordered a new trial today for Spokane man convicted in 2009 of being a sexually violent predator because the note he wrote, detailing his desire to rape, kidnap and dismember a woman, was never communicated to anyone and thus did not meet the required legal definition of a threat.

As part of the elements to qualify him as a sexually violent predator, the state must show that convicted rapist Shawn D. Botner committed an “overt act” toward committing another sex crime. Because of the decision Tuesday, Botner is expected to face another trial to determine whether he will remain in state custody indefinitely.

“He asked, ‘Why wasn’t the case dismissed,’” said his attorney, Tim Trageser, who spoke with Botner Tuesday. “That’s’ a good question. Why are they not releasing him? That bothers me.”

Assistant Attorney General Malcolm Ross said state prosecutors will soon decide whether to appeal the decision to the Washington Supreme Court or prepare for a new trial.

“We also need to look … to see if we have a recent over act” while in custody in the Special Commitment Center in McNeil Island. “There are a few things we have to look at before we decide how to proceed.”

Botner was convicted in 1988 of fondling a family member. In 1991, he was convicted of unlawful imprisonment after he followed a woman into a restroom at Riverfront Park and attacked her for several minutes before fleeing.

In February 1992, Botner followed a young woman into the restroom at Spokane Community College Adult Learning Center and choked her to unconsciousness with a phone cord.

Then in July 2006, a Gonzaga University security guard found a duffel bag, which Botner acknowledged was his, with a note detailing how he wanted to go to an adult book store dressed as a woman, abduct the female clerk, rape and dismember her.

Botner said he simply was writing out his fantasies. But three weeks later, he was stopped by Spokane Police riding a bicycle wearing no shirt and a women’s bra and he was armed with a hammer. He also had a bag that contained rope, a French maid outfit and a blond wig.

Unsolicited, he told the officers: “You’d be surprised what could be traced back to you by forensic evidence.”

Trageser said he doesn’t understand why state prosecutors never tried to connect the note to the incident on the bicycle, which occurred only about three blocks from an adult book store.

“They never argued in Botner’s case that riding around that night was the overt act,” Trageser said. “It never occurred to them that what he was doing was maybe consistent with what was in the note … which blew my mind.”

During the trial, Botner told the jury that it was “50-50” that he would commit a new sex crime. However, Division III Court of Appeals Judge Laurel Siddoway, writing for the majority, wrote that the note was not enough to show he committed an “overt” act.

“Mr. Botner did not express an intention to anyone. We do not suggest that his characterization of his handwritten entry as merely therapeutic must be accepted at face value,” Siddoway wrote. “ We recognize only that there was no evidence that his fantasy or plan – whatever it was – was ever intentionally communicated to anyone. We therefore reverse, but because the evidence was sufficient to establish an act, we remand for a new trial.” ..Source.. by Thomas Clouse

Read More of Article...

April 1, 2012

Minnesota's million-dollar inmates

4-1-2012 Minnesota:

James Vogel knew he had it coming in 2009 when an Aitkin County judge sentenced him to five years in prison for his sixth drunken-driving conviction. What gave him pause was the mysterious lump in his gut -- a bulge the size of a football -- and who was going to take care of it.

The lump turned out to be a rare form of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Terminal. Five years average life expectancy.

Yet, at the direction of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, Vogel soon started receiving the best medical care in America: a year of intensive chemotherapy, then a trip to the Mayo Clinic for nearly a month to receive a sophisticated bone-marrow transplant.

By the time he left Mayo in August 2010 and headed back to prison in Oak Park Heights, Vogel, now 52, was on his way to being what state corrections officials describe as a "million-dollar prisoner."

Vogel's treatment epitomizes a pair of forces bearing down on Minnesota's corrections system: Soaring medical costs and a rapidly aging prison population. More than one in 10 Minnesota inmates is now over age 50 -- a share that has doubled in the past decade -- and increasingly many of them need specialized treatment for costly illnesses such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. More than 550 offenders are serving life sentences; at an average age of 40, most face at least 30 more years in prison before they have any chance of parole.

With a medical budget that has tripled in the past decade, to $68 million last year, the Corrections Department faces politically sensitive questions -- among them the matter of providing expensive, sophisticated medical care to offenders who have committed heinous crimes, at a time when many Minnesotans are struggling to afford basic care and health insurance.

"The aging curve in prison is crushing when it comes to costs, just like the one for the general public, and it won't get any better," said Sen. Tony Lourey, DFL-Kerrick, whose district includes a correctional facility and the secured treatment center for the state's sex offenders.

Nan Larsen, the Corrections Department's medical director, is often asked by legislators why prisoners are afforded care that those on the outside would find difficult to obtain. A direct, tough-minded administrator, she has an answer:

"Their punishment is that they are separated from us, from society and from their families -- but not from our care."

Besides, Larsen notes, inmates like Vogel have unique status. As a prisoner in the United States, he is a member of the only class of Americans with a constitutionally guaranteed right to health care, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Vogel, a construction worker from Grand Rapids, Minn., understands the paradox.

"I probably would not have gone to see a physician, or had the cancer found as soon as it was, if I hadn't been arrested," he said in an interview at Stillwater prison. "I'll admit that. So there's a level of gratitude over the treatment I've received."

Prisoners elderly at 50

When Vogel became a million-dollar inmate, he joined a select group of convicts who need highly specialized care -- at cost of more than $14 million just last year.

They've lived hard lives and pushed their bodies to the breaking point. In Minnesota, a prisoner at 50 is considered elderly, with the medical problems of someone 60 or older.

A snapshot of inmate health is sobering:

More than 80 percent are considered chemically dependent, and nearly 20 percent are estimated to be hepatitis C-positive. Decades of smoking, boozing and drug use have pushed their hearts, livers and kidneys to the edge of failure.

Obesity, hypertension and diabetes are common.

More than 20 percent of the men and nearly 70 percent of the women are on psychotropic medications.

Just to treat prisoners with cancer, the department has spent more than $14.4 million over the past five years. Four prisoners now await stem-cell transplants.

Cardiac care -- ranging from heart bypass grafts and stents to pacemakers -- has cost nearly $2 million over the past four years.

On a recent morning deep inside the maximum-security Oak Park Heights prison, 16 prisoners were laid out in a semi-circle with tubes needled into their arms. Some of the most violent men in the state were hooked up for thrice-weekly, three-hour dialysis sessions to cleanse their failed kidneys.

Although they're a comparatively small number of prisoners, their care costs have doubled in the past four years and will only go higher. Currently, the dialysis program costs more than $560,000 a year. The number of dialysis patients is expected to double by 2020 and cost $1.8 million.

Currently, nine prisoners with hepatitis-C are deemed candidates for a special drug that has shown remarkable success over a 12-week regimen. The Corrections Department says it would cost $40,000 per treatment, a total of $360,000 if each prisoner is givn the drug.

And finally, when prisoners are considered so ill that they must be hospitalized, the daily rate for a room and routine care is $5,000.

Price tag: $49 billion

Across the country, many states are struggling with the same burden. The nation's prison population has almost tripled in the past two decades, to nearly 1.6 million inmates, due mainly to tougher sentencing guidelines; overall corrections spending has grown fivefold, to $49 billion in 2008, according to the Pew Center on the States.

Nationally, the number of prisoners over age 65 nearly doubled in the past decade, reaching more than 26,000 in 2010, according to a recent study by Human Rights Watch. Medical costs for older inmates range from $8,500 to $11,000 per person per year, the report found.

"Prisons were never designed to be geriatric facilities," said Jamie Fellner, the report's author. "Yet, U.S. corrections officials now operate old age homes behind bars."

To control costs in Minnesota, the Department of Corrections contracts its prison care to a national, for-profit health provider called Corizon, formerly Correctional Medical Services. This year, DOC will pay Corizon $28 million to provide basic care to prison inmates, up $9 million from 2006.

Corrections officials say the relationship is saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars; while public health care spending in Minnesota has increased an average of 8 percent annually over the past six years, the department says it has been able to keep its cost growth to about 5.5 percent using privatized care for prisoners. But inmates complain of long delays between the time their illnesses are diagnosed and when they get treatment.

Larsen notes that, while some inmates get the finest care available in Minnesota, others are denied services that are routinely covered by the health insurance of people on the outside.

By her count, there are more than 65 health insurance mandates for which the average citizen on private health insurance can receive coverage. They include certain kinds of cosmetic surgery, breast reconstructive surgery, wigs for hair loss and removal of port wine birth marks.

"The DOC does not provide this level of coverage," Larsen said.

Offenders, she added, receive a "community standard'' of care consistent with standards established by the state Board of Medical Practice.

"If an offender can live safely and participate in [prison] programming with a hernia, and it is not causing pain and not interfering with daily living, the [prison] doctor may not authorize treatment," Larsen said.

On borrowed time

..For the rest of this story: by StarTribune

Read More of Article...

March 11, 2012

Lawmakers corral runaway defenses with important civil-commitment reform

3-11-2012 Washington:

Legislative overhaul of legal costs for the most dangerous sex offenders eases taxpayer burden and adds transparency to a secretive and costly system.

KEY reforms in the way the state manages legal-defense costs for dangerous sex offenders could save $1.2 million next year and offer more transparency and accountability.

Though the Legislature has left much undone, it approved changes to help resolve the problem of runaway public-defense costs with Washington's civil-commitment program. The governor should sign the bill.

The state had little insight into or control over more than $12 million in legal costs for the defense of sex offenders, as revealed in The Seattle Times' January series, "Price of Protection."

Reporter Christine Willmsen exposed a pattern of out-of-control legal costs by defense lawyers paid to represent indigent sex offenders the state seeks to lock up. Public money flowed unfettered to expensive defense experts. Lawyers sought continuances as the meter ran. One case was continued for 11 years, an expensive proposition for taxpayers.

An important change transfers oversight of the legal bills from the state Department of Social and Health Services to the Office of Public Defense. That removes a serious conflict of interest. DSHS should not pay millions to help free inmates it is also trying to hold indefinitely.

Washington was first among states to append a civil process to the end of a criminal sentence that would assess a sex offender's likelihood of continuing violent behavior. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of civil commitments.

Those offenders deemed by a judge or jury as a threat to public safety are held at the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island indefinitely.

Credit Sen. Debbie Regala, D-Tacoma, for steering Senate Bill 6493 through the Legislature. This is a proud moment for Regala, whose pending retirement makes this her last session. ..Source.. by Seattle Times Editorial

Read More of Article...

Judge dismisses two cases because of excessive delays

3-11-2012 Minnesota:

Sixth District Court Judge Robert Macaulay dismissed two different criminal cases in Carlton County Court Tuesday “with prejudice” because the county attorney’s office had repeatedly failed to provide discovery [evidence] to defense attorney Terri Port Wright.

Sixth District Court Judge Robert Macaulay dismissed two different criminal cases in Carlton County Court Tuesday regarding Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) client Sarprio B.B. Doranti “with prejudice” because the county attorney’s office had repeatedly failed to provide discovery [evidence] to defense attorney Terri Port Wright. When a case is dismissed “with prejudice,” it generally means that prosecutors cannot file any new charges regarding the allegations.

Although Doranti was originally scheduled for jury trial on a number of different charges Tuesday morning, the trials were not held and Macaulay heard arguments on Port Wright’s motion to dismiss two of the cases, one which had dragged on since October 2009, the other since February 2010.

According to the criminal complaint on the February 2010 charges – which included felony terroristic threats as well as misdemeanor damage to property, misdemeanor indecent exposure and misdemeanor dangerous weapons ¬– on Feb. 17, 2010, Doranti was a patient in the high security unit of the MSOP-Moose Lake facility when staff observed him damaging the walls by scraping them and rubbing ink and feces on them.

He allegedly had at least two metal shanks, which he had sharpened to a point (which appeared to be made out of metal from an eyeglasses case and a nail clipper). He proceeded to make numerous threats of harm toward any nearby security staff. The complaint also states that when two female staff members tried to reason with him, he threatened to kill one and blow up her home and exposed himself to the other, while masturbating.

According to court officials, Macaulay granted the motion to dismiss all of the above charges as well as the October 2009 charge of felony terroristic threats “for failure to comply with the court rules and Judge Wolf’s order for discovery set in December.”

According to Port Wright, she had asked the county attorney’s office for discovery multiple times since she began representing MSOP clients in late summer of 2010.

“Some of these cases are 28 months old. We were in court on omnibus cases eight times on some,” Port Wright said after the hearing, indicating that the failure of the prosecution to share the evidence with the defense was partly to blame for the delays. “Then Judge Wolf set a drop-dead deadline of Dec. 21 for turning evidence over and there was still nothing.”

James Ross argued the case for the county attorney’s office Tuesday, although the cases were originally handled by Dennis Genereau Jr., who left the county attorney’s office in October to take a position as county coordinator. Within two months of Generau’s leaving, another long-time assistant county attorney, Nichole Carter, also resigned, leaving the county attorney’s office seriously understaffed. Although Carlton County Commissioners authorized County Attorney Thom Pertler to hire one new assistant county attorney, that process is ongoing.

Neither Ross nor Pertler was available for comment on the Doranti cases as the Pine Journal went to press. ..Source.. by Jana Peterson, Pine Journal

Read More of Article...

March 1, 2012

Lawsuits underscore MSOP’s legal jeopardy

3-1-2012 Minnesota:

Judges are starting to take seriously constitutional complaints about the Minnesota Sex Offender Program

In June Joseph Thompson, a civilly committed sex offender, filed a 57-page complaint on his own behalf in U.S. District Court alleging that the conditions of his confinement are unconstitutional. Thompson cited strip searches, confiscation of personal property and inadequate medical care as evidence that his confinement at a facility in Moose Lake is illegal. Such pro se court filings — often crude and poorly argued — are routinely dismissed as lacking merit.

But in January, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffery Keyes ruled that Thompson’s complaint had sufficient merit to entitle him to appointed legal representation. Specifically, the judge determined that a dozen of Thompson’s claims — including that he was wrongly denied adequate treatment and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment — warranted additional legal scrutiny. Keyes appointed the firm of Gustafson Gluek to represent him in subsequent proceedings.

“Although Plaintiff has the threshold ability to articulate his claims and to communicate effectively with the Court,” Keyes wrote in his opinion, “this Court believes that the complexity of the constitutional issues and Plaintiff’s lack of legal knowledge will present him with such disadvantages that appointment of counsel would substantially benefit the Court and Plaintiff.”

Dayton cited looming constitutional challenge

Last month Gov. Mark Dayton cited constitutional concerns in a letter to House leaders outlining why his administration is not opposing the provisional release of Clarence Opheim from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) despite a criminal history that includes molesting 29 boys. Opheim is likely to become just the second MSOP enrollee ever granted a provisional release from the program. The first individual violated the terms of his release, was returned to the program and eventually died while civilly committed.

“In the 18 years since the law was passed, not a single patient has yet been successfully released from such civil commitment,” Dayton wrote in the letter to House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Majority Leader Matt Dean, defending his administration’s decision. “This situation is now being used in a court proceeding, which claims that these people are being confined in legal institutions for life without the legal authority to do so. Again, were this challenge to succeed, it would have very serious ramifications for public safety.”

While Dayton is undoubtedly seeking political cover on a volatile issue, the Thompson lawsuit and others serve to underscore the constitutional perils facing the MSOP if it continues to operate without ever releasing individuals. A judge could determine that the program violates the rights of enrollees and order that all 600-plus individuals be released.

More likely, perhaps, is a scenario similar to what played out in Washington State. In 1994 a federal judge determined that the state’s civil commitment program for sex offenders was operating in violation of the Constitution. That resulted in a 13-year injunction during which the state’s civil commitment program was required to make annual reports to the courts on the adequacy of its mental health treatment programs. At one point the court imposed a contempt fine of $50 per day per patient for infractions but stayed the financial penalties in recognition of the program’s progress.

“It’s a real risk,” said Eric Janus, dean of the William Mitchell College of Law and an expert on civil commitment proceedings. “What the odds are is a little hard to say. In my judgment every year that goes by with no one being released, or only a few, increases the risk because it provides stronger and stronger evidence that the non-punitive purpose of this program is actually a sham.”

Teresa Nelson, an attorney with the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, points out that Minnesota’s civil commitment statute was initially given clearance by the courts based on the promise that sex offenders would be given a legitimate chance at rehabilitation and release. “If that treatment and that whole process is a sham, at some point a court is going to say, wait a minute, we don’t have to just look at what the intent was, we can look at what you’re actually doing,“ Nelson said.

OLA report noted grounds for challenge

Adding to the legal jeopardy is a report released last year by the Office of the Legislative Auditor that found widespread problems with the MSOP. Criticisms of the program included inadequate access to treatment, disparate treatment of potential enrollees across the state and lack of lower-cost alternatives to civil commitment. “Without releases, Minnesota is susceptible to lawsuits challenging the adequacy of the treatment program,” the report concluded. In fact, Keyes cited the legislative auditor’s report extensively as evidence of problems with the MSOP in his findings in the Thompson case.

“I just think that that provides such weight and credibility that even these pretty inartful pro se complaints begin to take on substance,” Janus said. “If there is a good lawyer with some resources who has an opportunity to do discovery, there’s a really strong case that can be put together that’s very damning.”

The lawsuit that will bear watching in the coming months, however, is not the one filed by Thompson. The Gustafson Gluek firm was also appointed to work on another pro se filing with 14 named plaintiffs, including Keven Scott Karsjens, who are confined to the Moose Lake facility. That case is expected to move forward as a class action lawsuit and deal with claims similar to those raised by Thompson. “That’s going to be sort of the vehicle for all of the claims,” said David Goodwin, an attorney with Gustafson Gluek who is working on the case. “Once it becomes a class, we’re going to aim to represent everybody at Moose Lake.”

Multiple constitutional claims

The Karsjens complaint details a litany of purported constitutional issues with the MSOP, including punitive strip searches, strict limits on personal property, living conditions that mirror prison conditions and inadequate treatment. “The real mission of the MSOP now is institutionalization, preventative detention and punishment,” the complaint reads. “There is no rehabilitative purpose.” The lawsuit is seeking an injunction prohibiting the state from continuing to engage in unconstitutional practices. It also asks for damages in excess of $750,000. (An amended complaint is slated to be filed this week, but it’s not expected to alter the general character of the claims.)
That lawsuit is not the only one that could have potential ramifications for the MSOP. A 2009 federal case brought by the ACLU on behalf of six MSOP enrollees also alleges that they are subjected to illegal strip searches and seizures of personal property. The case was dismissed last year, but the plaintiffs have appealed. Oral arguments are expected to take place in May before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nelson argues that ultimately the Legislature will need to overhaul the state’s policies for dangerous sex offenders before the perils of legal liability will be significantly reduced.

“It’s very easy for legislators to kind of pander to public sentiment,” Nelson said. “It’s much more difficult to implement good public policy and make sure that you’re following the Constitution and make sure you’re doing what you said you would do when you passed the law.” ..Source.. by Paul Demko

Read More of Article...

February 13, 2012

House Majority Leader questions pending release of convicted sex offender Clarence Opheim

2-13-2012 Minnesota:

ST. PAUL, Minn. — A civilly committed sex offender will leave the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in St. Peter within three weeks. On Friday, a panel of three judges issued a written order allowing 64-year-old Clarence Opheim's provisional release to a secure halfway house.

Republican legislators say they want to know why the Department of Human Services didn't oppose Opheim's release. They'll hold hearings this week in an attempt to get an answer.

Republican House Majority Leader Matt Dean says he's shocked that DFL Gov. Mark Dayton's administration would allow Opheim to live outside the tight circle of razor wire that surrounds state facilities for civilly committed sex offenders.

"We can sure ask the department and the governor to reconsider," said Dean. "Holy cow. If this person were to reoffend and we didn't say anything, we would certainly not be doing our jobs.

"This is not a person that if they were to reoffend, that we would look back on and say, 'Boy, no one saw any warning signs.'"

Opheim has confessed to 100 criminal sexual acts committed against dozens of boys as young as 8. Records show he would gain the trust of children in his northeast Minneapolis neighborhood by offering them candy and pop.

Opheim completed a prison sentence, but judges found him too dangerous to release and committed him to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Opheim spent nearly 20 years in the program undergoing voluntary treatment.

A year ago, Department of Human Services staff evaluated Opheim and found he was still in the high-risk range to commit a serious sex offense again. Majority Leader Dean says that shows Opheim is a danger to public safety.

"It's not what I think about Mr. Opheim, it's what the agency said -- that he is a threat and shouldn't be let go," said Dean. "That's not Matt Dean's opinion, that's the department's opinion."

So, Dean wants to know, what changed in a year? The answer involves a new report on Opheim from an independent, court-appointed evaluator -- Dr. James Alsdurf.

Alsdurf, a Wayzata psychologist, has been involved in Minnesota sex offender proceedings for decades. He says this is the first time he's endorsed a civilly committed offender's provisional release.

Alsdurf says he analyzed data and read hundreds of documents about Opheim, He then interviewed the Opheim for three hours and wrote a 14-page report.

"This is a rigorous process," said Alsdurf. "This isn't a flip of the coin. This isn't casual and it is done really with as much rigor that I think you can do it with."

Gov. Dayton has pointed out that the Minnesota Sex Offender Program is vulnerable to court cases that charge the program is unconstitutional because it's never released anyone. He says the whole program could be lost if such a court case were successful.

Civil commitment is also expensive. There are currently 635 people in the state sex offender program, and each of them cost the state $317 per day. By comparison, it costs Minnesota about $86 a day to keep someone in state prison.

In response, the Department of Human Services has worked with sex-offender advocates to build a community-based program that could handle the treatment and security needs of sex offenders once considered too dangerous for release.

Eric Janus, president and dean of William Mitchell College of Law, says the courts have been waiting for such a program.

"We have three judges who have plenty of experience in this, and have never let anybody out before," noted Janus. Now they've said, 'OK, you've got your ducks in a row, we're going to do it. Just like Wisconsin's done it, just like New York's done it, just like Texas has done it."

Once released, Opheim will wear a GPS monitor, get substance abuse treatment, and be under 24-hour security. Human Services commissioner Lucinda Jesson says those precautions, and the opinions of Alsdurf and other experts, convinced her not to oppose Opheim's release.

But Jesson says she'll make clear to legislators Wednesday that releasing Opheim was the court's decision.

"The benefit of having a hearing on this is I think it will make clear what the process is for provisional discharge," said Jesson. "If the Legislature, having learned what the process is, wants to try to change that -- I mean they're the Legislature, they can make the laws. But until they change the laws, I'm going to follow the ones that we have today."

Jesson also points out state law says that civilly committed sex offenders are eligible for release once they have completed treatment. ..Source.. by Rupa Shenoy, Minnesota Public Radio

Read More of Article...

January 12, 2012

Two Fourth Circuit rulings on civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons

1-12-2012 4th Circuit:

The Fourth Circuit yesterday issued two published opinions dealing with the civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons, United States v. Timms and United States v. Hall. The two cases were decided by unanimous vote of a panel made up of Chief Judge Traxler, Judge Agee, and Judge Motz. They are follow-up cases to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Comstock, which upheld Congress’s power to enact § 4248 under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The opinion in Timms, by Judge Agee, contains an overview of the evolution and current state of judicial treatment of the “civil commitment system established by § 4248 as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.” The decision reverses a district court’s dismissal of a commitment action against Gerald Timms.

The Fourth Circuit concludes that § 4248 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and that Timms’s right to due process was not violated by extended delays in the consideration of his commitment (large chunks of which were due to the lengthy constitutional challenge to § 4248 resolved by the Supreme Court in Comstock).

In United States v. Hall, authored by Chief Judge Traxler, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s determination that the government had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Hall is sexually dangerous.

These two decisions are important because the vast majority of those that the federal government has certified as sexually dangerous persons are in FCI-Butner, the federal correctional facility in Butner, North Carolina.

According to the opinion, the government has certified 130 persons as “sexually dangerous,” and 116 of those certifications were filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina. (Last February, the Raleigh Public Record did a two-part story (here and here) on the men at FCI-Butner being held as “sexually dangerous.”). ..Source.. by WalshLaw

Read More of Article...

August 7, 2011

In Germany, Therapy For Sex Offenders In A Hard Metal Setting

8-7-2011 Germany:

A new German law requires therapy for criminals who served their full sentences but are still deemed too dangerous for release. In the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, therapy sessions are set to begin in a refurbished facility that looks a lot like a prison – because it used to be one.

OBERHAUSEN -- The sound of the alarm goes right through you – and through the prison walls. In the former penitentiary in Oberhausen, somebody has set it off. Markus Brehmer rushes out of cell 220 and calls down the hall: “Who did that? Mr. Reimann, please turn that off!” Somebody in a nearby cell had meant to turn on the light and pushed the wrong button by mistake.

A few moments later, silence returns, and Brehmer continues to show a group of reporters around the different floors of the facility with its steel doors and barred partitions. There aren’t any more prisoners here. This old penitentiary opposite Oberhausen’s train station is empty, though not for long.

A first group of sex offenders and violent criminals are due to move in soon. These are men who are still considered dangerous, but who – thanks to a Supreme Court decision – are being released from preventive detention in the penal system.

The former prison, which still looks exactly like a prison, has now been baptized the Oberhausen Therapy Center. The facility is being run by the Landschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR), a service association charged with the task by the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen. Brehmer, who is employed by the LVR, is the section head in charge of the new “therapy center.”

On the tour, Brehmer highlights the additional bars on the windows, made of Mangan hard metal, the additional surveillance cameras, the service rooms with the control monitors on each floor. He also points out an unobtrusive grey box mounted on a hall wall: “That’s the personal emergency call system – one of our biggest investments,” he says.

As soon as a guard presses a red button on his mobile phone or pulls a pin out (much in the same way one would remove the pin from a grenade) an emergency call gets sent from this box to a group of guards known as the “alarm group.” They can see what floor the call is coming from, and rush to help.

A million-euro makeover

Nordrhein-Westfalen’s red/green (socialist and green party) government spent some 1.2 million euros on converting the old jail, which used to house 80 prisoners, but is now limited to 18 people for whom 40 guards, doctors, psychologists and social workers will be responsible.

Many walls that previously divided the space into small cells were broken through to create larger spaces – each equipped with a TV, tables and a kitchen. Patients will be living in groups.

Nordrhein-Westfalen is the first German state to come up with a solution for dealing with dangerous criminals who cannot be let back out into society after they have served their prison sentences but who, according to a 2009 decision of the European Court of Human Rights, cannot continue to be detained in a penal institution.

An amendment to the law in 1998 made it possible to continue preventive detention for an undetermined length of time. But the decision of the European Court is relevant to all the so called “old cases” – i.e. cases involving people convicted prior to the change and who, after serving their sentence and a maximum of 10 years preventive detention, were kept behind bars because of the level of danger they represented for society.

German courts reacted differently to the Strasbourg judge’s decision, but a law that went into effect at the beginning of the year stated that prisoners who are considered extremely dangerous or are mentally disturbed must be transferred from preventive detention in a prison to a closed therapeutic facility.

But it’s taking a while to find locations for such facilities and to install them. Meanwhile some detainees, released into society for lack of therapy centers, committed new crimes even though they were under around-the-clock police surveillance. Two weeks ago, a 49-year-old pedophile managed to evade police and shortly afterwards abused a small girl.

The Oberhausen Therapy Center is meant to prevent perpetrators who are potential recidivists from getting back into society too quickly after they are released from preventive detention. But, says head psychologist Verena Peykan, the therapy they are getting is being done with an eye to their eventual return to society.

According to experts, fast results should not be anticipated. These are mostly men, 60 or older who have been behind bars for decades and – with the expectation that they would spend the rest of their lives in jail – were not given therapy.

The first inmate, a 63-year-old man, is due to arrive within a couple of weeks.

The converted Oberhausen jail is seen as a temporary solution until the end of 2012. The state health ministry is looking around for a permanent location – discreetly, so as to keep public opposition to a minimum. ..Source.. by Kristian Frigelj

Read More of Article...

July 11, 2011

Questions linger over fate of state’s sexual violent predator program

7-11-2011 Virginia:

RICHMOND – The state’s sex offenders are a group no one wants to defend, no one wants to house and almost no one wants to pay to treat.

And yet, state taxpayers are spending about $150,000 per year for each sexually violent person the state chooses to civilly commit after the offender completes his prison sentences.

Hundreds of sexual offenders are expected to be released from state prisons this year and about 1 percent of those offenders each year end up in a state-run mental health institution in Nottaway County. The population is expected to peak over 300 men housed at the facility this summer.

Their stay is indefinite and costly to the taxpayer. Although they are being held to receive psychiatric treatment, there are serious questions whether these individuals can be effectively treated.

The population of sexual violent predators at the Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation is ballooning as judges send more offenders to the facility and few leave.

Gov. Bob McDonnell asked for additional funding this year to add a second facility in nearby Brunswick County, but lawmakers cut the funding from the budget. And they dragged their feet to fully fund the existing facility, instead requiring that the patients double-bunk for now.

This summer, a joint legislative committee is reviewing the program to ensure that only the worst offenders are committed to Nottoway. The committee is also checking whether the 10-question assessment tool the state uses is effectively screening offenders.

Offenders are assessed during their final 10 months in prison to determine whether they should be ordered into the program. About 20 percent of the offenders eventually go before a civil judge, who determines whether they are sent home or sent to the predator program, which is known as a civil commitment.

Few lawmakers question the intent of the program. But legislators do question the cost of the program and wonder whether the state is obligated to pay for treatment if treatment isn’t helping.

Although the program has operated since 2003, questions remain whether it violates offenders’ rights and whether it protects the public.

Standing firm

“It is literally the most important program in the entire state of Virginia because the people who are put in this facility are 99.99 percent certain to molest a kid when they get out,” said Del. David Albo, (R-Fairfax), who was a co-sponsor of the original authorizing legislation. “Having them in this facility literally saves children from being raped. All that sounds extreme, it is that dire.”

---And he has no proof that is true, zero and mentions none but personal belief.
Albo said he believes the program is working and that all of the offenders housed in the Nottoway facility belong there. Although costs have skyrocketed, Albo said the program is worth the hefty price tag and should be funded before any other state program.

The legislator said he would be willing to consider reducing the number of crimes that make offenders eligible for the state’s screening process. He wants to see the results of the legislative study, which is expected in November.

Sharon Reed has spent her career working with the victims of sex crimes — both young and old — and she said it’s tax money well spent to keep child abusers off the street.

“For most of my victims, their worst fear is re-encountering the offender,” said Reed, the director of the Washington County Victim/Witness Program, which helps victims navigate the justice system. “We’re a small community. They’re going to pass them somewhere, the Walmart, the Food City.”

She said she wishes there were effective treatments for sexual predators to keep them from offending. But the state’s civil commitment program is the next best thing because it keeps them from returning home, Reed said.

Treatment success varies

Scientific study results on whether treatment helps sex offenders from re-offending are mixed, said Roxanne Lieb, associate director of the Washington Institute for Public Policy and an expert on sex offenders. The institute is the nonpartisan, research arm of the Washington state Legislature.

The results depend on the type of sex offender and the offender’s history. Behaviors can improve with age for some; others learn to accept that their behavior is not culturally accepted and try to curb their urges, Lieb said.

But still others will never be able to stop re-offending regardless of treatment. Even castration — chemical or surgical —isn’t a sure-fire fix, Lieb said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that governments can isolate violent sexual offenders to protect the public as long as the offenders receive treatment, she said.

“You don’t have to know what you are doing is going to turn people around,” Lieb said.

Civil rights at risk

The American Civil Liberties Union says civil commitments violate an offender’s due process rights because the offenders essentially serve an indeterminate sentence in the institutions, said Kent Willis, director of the ACLU’s Virginia Chapter.

The ACLU is a national nonprofit that works to protect constitutional rights including freedom of religion and equal protection rights especially as they apply to minorities, the disabled and prisoners.

“A fundamental principle of the United States is that you have due process rights when you’ve been accused of a crime. It should apply to everyone equally; this includes sex offenders and murderers as well as people who commit minor crimes. It’s a fundamental notion of fairness in the criminal justice system,” Willis said. “What you can’t do is put someone behind bars until you feel like letting them out. That’s what’s happening here.”

He said the ACLU also questions whether Virginia’s program meets the minimum requirements laid out in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, based on a Kansas program.

That ruling led the way for many states, including Virginia, to create civil commitment programs even though Virginia had never discussed the concept before the Supreme Court’s decision, Willis said.

Virginia passed its authorizing legislation in 1999. And during debate, legislators were concerned about violating offenders’ due process rights. But they were more concerned about the cost of the program. The legislation passed easily but without any funding, Willis said.

Defending the defenseless

Mary Devoy is one of the few people in Virginia who advocates on behalf of sex offenders. The wife of a registered sex offender, she is the director of a group called Reform Sex Offender Laws of Virginia, which seeks a more-even handed approach to investigating, prosecuting and punishing sex offenders.

She said the state’s civil commitment program overreaches and that the assessment process is rife with problems.

“It needs to be returned to the four original crimes. We keep widening the net,” she said.

Devoy said the 10-question test, which is used to weed out offenders that could be committed, focuses on an offender’s past criminal history but doesn’t take into account how they’ve responded to any therapy they’ve received, or if they admitted their guilt, or if they’ve apologized to the victim.

“It has nothing to do with your possible future of re-offending. It was all about your past behavior. That’s not the way we should be judging if people are predisposed to re-offend,” she said.

Del. Johnny Joannou, (D-Portsmouth), was one of the few lawmakers who voted against the authorizing legislation that set the framework for the state’s civil commitment program.

He agreed with Devoy that the number of crimes that make offenders eligible for the program need to be scaled back so that only the worst and most violent offenders are housed in Nottoway.

The more offenders who enter the facility, the more nurses and support staff are needed, and he questions why the state should pay for such a program when developmentally disabled adults and children wait years to receive state benefits, Joannou said.

“It’s so costly now. I don’t know how we’re going to fund it,” Joannou said. “What do you cut, aid to children who desperately need it?” ..Source.. by Amanda Iacone, Virginia Statehouse News

Read More of Article...

June 27, 2011

Millions spent on rehabilitation, but no one has been rehabilitated

6-27-2011 Minnesota:

Despite spending $386.9 million since 2005 alone, the number of Minnesota Sex Offender Program patients successfully rehabilitated — permanently released back into the community — is zero.

You might not care about people like 43-year-old Russell Lynn Norton, a former Eveleth and Duluth resident and convicted sex offender whom the state of Minnesota considers a psychopath unable to control his impulses to reoffend.

But in 2010, the state spent an average of $120,000 a year to house, feed and treat offenders like Norton through the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, nearly 3½ times as much as it would spend if he were in a state prison.

Created in the mid-1990s, MSOP is not supposed to be incarceration. Like Norton, nearly all the offenders there have completed their prison time and are committed to the center for intensive treatment for eventual release back into society. The hundreds of offenders who have gone through MSOP are called “patients” or “clients” instead of inmates. Yet despite spending $386.9 million since 2005 alone, the number of patients successfully rehabilitated — permanently released back into the community — is zero.

Some have served life sentences there; more than 18 have died in the heavily secured facility surrounded by razor-wire fences. Critics have used that poor success rate to label MSOP Minnesota’s Guantanamo or Gulag.

Norton said he saw his commitment as the equivalent of a death sentence, which he said he and three others tried to escape last year.

“It came down to a necessity, protecting myself, protecting my very psyche, to leave this place. Because it’s just punitive,” Norton told the News Tribune during an in-person interview. “People in here shouldn’t be treated any differently than people out there on the streets. To do so would be punitive; it would be punishment. And this isn’t supposed to be about punishment. It’s supposed to be treatment.” ..Source.. by Brandon Stahl, Duluth News Tribune

Read More of Article...

June 5, 2011

Sex offender program is running out of room

Folks we need to study this article because the Journalist has discovered that, "And unlike Virginia, other states do not admit those who cannot be made competent to stand trial or seriously mentally ill persons" Apparently Virginia is putting some, not sex offenders, who have other ailments, into civil commitment just to get rid of a problem, rather than handle that person's problem in a constitutional way! See highlights below..
6-5-2011 Virginia:

BURKEVILLE -- A program keeping some of Virginia's most dangerous sex offenders off the streets for treatment has been brought to a crossroad by unexpected growth.

The Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation is the involuntary home of rapists, child molesters and others deemed "sexually violent predators" too dangerous for release after they have served their prison sentences.

When it began in a makeshift facility in Petersburg in 2003, the VCBR was not projected to reach 100 residents until 2013. Instead, this fall there will be 300 at $91,000 a year each — almost four times the cost of a prison inmate.

As a result, a $62 million, 300-bed, maximum-security campus that opened in Nottoway County in 2008 is about to run out of room. Proposed solutions include construction, re-evaluating those being admitted, privatization and greater use of community supervision.

For now at least, the General Assembly has decided that double-bunking sex offenders is part of the answer.

This fall, VCBR management will start pairing residents for cells with 85 square feet of floor space, much of it taken up by the bunk, the sink/toilet, lockers, a chair and a desk.

Second bunks will be installed above lower ones, but it is not yet known how residents will reach upper bunks. Toilets face the bunks and so, too, will anyone using them.

Had it been known two people would share a room, as in some prisons, the toilets would not have been installed where they are, said Olivia J. Garland, deputy commissioner for the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.

"There are a number of things that would be different," Garland said. "It wasn't set up this way, and now we're being pushed into making this work."

She said about half the commitment programs across the country double-bunk, but some that have say they regret it because it has created difficulties.

"Clinically it is not seen to be therapeutic for these type individuals to be double-bunked," Garland said. "We're teaching them a number of things about their sexuality, and we just see double-bunking as counterproductive to that."

But, she said, "We'll do what we need to do. Our job is to make things happen. … We'll make the best of it."

* * * * *

Civil-commitment programs are not supposed to be punitive, says Dr. Fred S. Berlin, a forensic psychiatrist and founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic.

Courts have ruled such offenders can continue to be held after prison on civil — not criminal — court orders, but only if they are given meaningful treatment with the aim of making them safe for release, if possible.

"These are, after all, people who have already served their time and paid their debt to society," he said.

"If the conditions are going to become almost indistinguishable from what goes on in prison — for some of them perhaps even more restrictive than what they had experienced in prison — then it begs the question of what are we really doing here," Berlin said.

The 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing civil commitments was a narrow, 5-4 vote, he said. "You can't normally lock someone up for a future crime that someone else thinks they're going to commit."

The idea that this is legitimate is based on the notion that they have a mental disorder that is treatable, he said.

And the treatment is expensive. In addition to security staff, the VCBR requires a wide range of professionals, from counselors to physicians. Some $17.3 million was appropriated for the year ending June 30, 2010, to pay for 297 positions there.

Treatment or therapy of various kinds goes on through much of the day. Unlike prison inmates, residents are not locked in their rooms unless they request it.

Officials say the current resident population of 267 includes several incompetent to stand trial, three who are deaf, some who are physically handicapped and/or chronically ill, and those with psychiatric problems who are not amenable to treatment.

Most of the other 19 states with such programs require a history of sexually dangerous behavior — not just one sex offense. And unlike Virginia, other states do not admit those who cannot be made competent to stand trial or seriously mentally ill persons.

There are predators among predators, and some are susceptible to victimization. The task of matching cellmates, officials say, could be difficult. Garland said initially they may double-bunk appropriate newcomers who may have had cellmates in prison.

* * * * *

In recent years, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Behavioral Health and Development Services has written highly critical reports of the VCBR.

"Past inspections have consistently documented concerns at the facility including: limited treatment opportunities; inadequate treatment planning … and inadequate staffing to assure safety and effective programming," stated the most recent report last month.

The OIG suggests that the rapid, unforeseen growth and rising cost of the program presents an opportunity to evaluate the state's civil-commitment laws and the treatment of sexually violent predators.

Garland said Gov. Bob McDonnell requested $69 million this year to cover the program's shortfall until January 2013 in a plan that included reopening the program's old 48-bed facility in Petersburg.

But the legislature opted for roughly $24 million along with double-bunking up to 150 residents. It also ordered a study by the Joint Legislative Audit Review Commission of why the center costs so much and why it has grown so quickly.

"We are thrilled that JLARC is doing this study," Garland said. "I don't think the program has been looked at since those changes in 2006. This is an opportunity to look at the types of people we're putting in the program."

* * * * *

Kenneth W. Stolle, the Virginia Beach sheriff who, as a state senator in 2003, helped create the center, warned from the beginning that treatment was expensive and feared funding it would be a challenge.

He believes that part of the current problem started in 2006 when the General Assembly opened the door to more admissions by expanding the list of offenses that can lead to civil commitment from four crimes to 28.

Also the screening tool used to determine eligibility was updated in 2006 to one believed more accurate. But the new tool means someone with just one sex offense could be committed to the VCBR, which was started with the intent of holding only the most dangerous of sex offenders.

Stolle said, "Some people are of the opinion you ought to lock them up and throw away the key. That's all fine and good if you've got the money."

"We made some very unwise decisions for Virginia's future and the future of the sexually violent predator program," he said.

Martin Andrews, a sexual-assault victim and the activist largely credited for getting the VCBR funded by the legislature, said he is concerned.

"We need to take a very hard look at our program to determine if the effort is still within the original scope and intent of providing an option for the state in dealing with the worst of the worst offenders," he said.

Andrews said that clearly, "A lot of people have said these particular guys need to be in some sort of a program. But I am — like a lot of people — just alarmed by how fast the program has grown."

Andrews and Stolle think some offenders can be less expensively, but still effectively, handled through community release and treatment under tight supervision.

On the other hand, Stolle recognizes there are political realities that must be faced should someone who is not committed is released from prison and goes out and reoffends.

"You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't," he said. ..Source.. by Frank Green

Read More of Article...