Civil Commitment

New York’s Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders – posted 1/6/11

 According to an article on Democrat and Chronicle.com, there are civil commitment programs for sex offenders in at least twenty states.

 The purpose of civil commitment is to hold sex offenders with “mental abnormalities” relating to sexual offending/re-offending in secure state psychiatric facilities (or, in the alternative, to subject these offenders to “intensive parole program”).  If held, these offenders may be civilly committed for life (or until he or she is ‘cured’ of the mental abnormality).

 Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court has upheld these civil commitments, and has gone further to find that the proceedings are not criminal in nature.  What that means for those being subjected to these proceedings is that there is less of a guarantee to constitutional due process; the proceedings may be closed to the public and the records ordered sealed.

 As enticing as it may seem to the public to forever lock away the dangerous sex offenders, many of these programs are causing their states to suffer incredible costs.

 New York has only been implementing its civil commitment program since 2007, and yet the cost of civilly committing each sex offender has been gauged at approximately $175,000 per person.  The cost of housing each offender is four times the cost involved with incarcerating a criminal defendant in a New York prison.  Furthermore, the costs cited by the Democrat and Chronicle.com article do not include the costs of each civil commitment trial, which typically involves battling opinions between psychiatric experts.

 Due to space limitations, it is also forcing the state’s Office of Mental Health to convert office space and storage areas into bedrooms for the offenders.

 Elsewhere, the civil commitment program in Minnesota has seen a tripling of costs over the last six years.  New York’s program is anticipated to increase in costs by approximately $12 million per year.

 New York Assemblyman Joseph Lentol is quoted in the article as stating: “There is a real problem and 30 years from now we may be doing what we did with [the drug laws in the state] and repealing civil confinement because it’s not working…But we haven’t reached that point yet.”

 Many are questioning whether there are better ways to spend the state’s money; more specifically, whether the money should be spent on sex offender treatment instead of confinement.

 Sadly, with the United States Supreme Court’s condoning of these programs, it is more likely that more civil commitment programs will be enacted before any are repealed.  As the Democrat and Chronicle.com article mentions, it is well-known that opposing such a program would be a potentially-devastating political move.  It is hard to fathom a politician losing votes for being too tough on sex offenders.

How do you think states should handle those with sexually-related mental abnormalities?  Do you think indefinite civil commitment is the answer?  If not, how should the money be spent?

First Circuit Demands DOC Provide Hormone Therapy to Transgender Inmate (posted 6/17/11):

Last month, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in which the lower court ruled that the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (“Mass. DOC”) had been “deliberately indifferent” to a civilly committed transgender sex offender’s medical need for hormone therapy.  See Battista v. Clarke, ____ F.3d _____, 2011 WL 1902165 (1st Cir. 2011).

Sandy Battista (born “David Megarry”) has been civilly committed to theMassachusettsTreatmentCenterinBridgewater,Massachusettssince 2003 as a “sexually dangerous person” (“SDP”).  Ms. Battista has been requesting hormone therapy to treat her diagnosed “gender identity disorder” (“GID”) since 1996 (which was before her civil commitment but while she was still incarcerated by the Mass. DOC).  After several drawn-out civil suits over the last fifteen years, the Mass. DOC twice found that providing hormone therapy and female clothing and accessories to Ms. Battista would be a “safety risk” that was too high to warrant treatment (even though the Mass. DOC did start providing her with treatment at some point during the litigation).

In Battista, the Circuit Court noted the Mass. DOC’s initial resistance to believing that “GID is a disorder that can be extremely dangerous,” even though several medical professionals had deemed the treatment necessary to Battista’s mental and physical health.  Id. at *2-3, 6.  Moreover, the Court noted that any justified belief in a security or safety risk had been undercut by the Mass. DOC’s repeated delays, “poor explanations, missteps, changes in position and rigidities” which amounted to an extreme example of bureaucracy.  Id.

In the end, Battista will be provided hormone therapy and appropriate security measures will have to be put in place to protect her safety among the other inmates.

What do you think of the Circuit Court’s decision in Battista?  Was the Mass. DOC’s conduct “deliberate indifference” or “unreasonable professional judgment” to addressing Sandy Battista’s medical needs?  If it was, do you agree with the citizens ofMassachusetts paying for a civilly-committed inmate’s hormone therapy?  If you are against financing that treatment, or believe it was appropriate to deny her repeated requests, why do you think it wasn’t necessary to comply?

For more information about legal representation of those charged with sex crimes, please visit: http://katherinegodinlaw.com/areas-of-law/sex-crimes/

or

http://www.masexcrimesdefense.com

Katherine E. Godin, Esq.

The Law Office of Katherine Godin, Inc.

615 Jefferson Blvd.

Warwick, RI 02886

Phone: (401) 274-2423

Fax: (401) 489-7580

Email: kg@katherinegodinlaw.com

Website: http://www.katherinegodinlaw.com