2-3-2008 Oklahoma:
Federal prosecutors in Oklahoma City failed in their bid to keep a convicted sex offender behind bars, but similar efforts have been successful in other jurisdictions since the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in July 2006.
Carl Dowell, who was convicted of raping an 8-year-old girl in Maryland in 1984, was months away from being released in prison when prosecutors in Oklahoma City filed paperwork to keep him there, claiming he was a "sexually dangerous person” under the new law.
The case, filed Nov, 3, 2006, was among the first of its kind filed against sex offenders in federal prisons after the Walsh Act established provision to keep them behind bars.
Folks may remember my Commentary about this aspect of the Adam Walsh Act. That is why prosecutors will chose federal court over state court any time it is possible which occurred here.
It was filed in Oklahoma City because Dowell was housed here.
U.S. District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti ruled Jan. 25 prosecutors did not prove Dowell was dangerous, but such instances are rare, a Justice Department spokesman said.
Seventy-one sex offenders have been certified as sexually dangerous and kept behind bars, said spokesman Charles Miller said, while only a "few” such petitions had been dismissed — either by prosecutors or a judge. That includes one where an inmate died before his case was heard.
Another 65 or so cases are pending, he said, mostly in the eastern district of North Carolina.
That is likely to be the point of origin for future cases, officials said, because that district is home to the prison that houses the federal sex offender rehabilitation program.
Oklahoma law does not allow such civil commitments, which are opposed by groups like the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
A group official said civil commitment laws punish offenders who already have paid their debt to society.
Jennifer McLaughlin, a sexual assault specialist with the Oklahoma Coalition against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, said civil commitment is also an expensive alternative, costing about four times more than incarceration.
McLaughlin also noted it is difficult to assess the risk posed by convicted sex offenders, who may not even be amenable to treatment if they are kept in custody.
‘Evolving' law
She said there are other alternatives to keeping sex offenders behind bars and trying to force them into treatment, including split sentences that keep them on probation after they are released from prison.
"Whether we like it or not, we have to figure out a way to manage them,” McLaughlin said.
She said about 20 states have civil commitment laws, although a Chicago law professor who specializes in laws dealing with sexual violence said most are seldom used.
Cory Rayburn Yung, an assistant professor at Chicago's John Marshall Law School, said treatment for sex offenders is typically not much different than prison because most offenders aren't getting enough treatment to be released.
He said prison is a cheaper alternative because "prison guards don't get paid as much as doctors.”
Yung said the federal civil commitment procedures established by the Walsh Act have not been subject to many challenges in court, although a federal judge in North Carolina ruled the practice was unconstitutional because jurisdictional issues.
Another judge in Massachusetts did not have any problem with that aspect of the law in considering a similar challenge, he said.
So far the issue has not been taken up by any of the nation's federal appellate courts.
"It's definitely a very evolving area of the law,” Yung said. ..more.. by Jay F. Marks, Staff Writer
No comments:
Post a Comment