Friday, August 27, 2010

Keeping the "Most Dangerous" Locked Up Indefinitely

by Diane Dimond

When is the spread of AIDS criminal?

You are the judge and jury on this one. There are a lot of number to take into account here, so read carefully.

A man who knew he was HIV
positive admitted to having unprotected sex with dozens of women and girls as young as 14. Health officials put the number of his potential HIV victims at 75. It was discovered that at least 13 of those females had been infected with the HIV virus, including the 14-year-old. In media interviews, after the man pleaded guilty and was sentenced to twelve years in prison for statutory rape and reckless endangerment, he boasted that he’d actually had up to 300 sexual partners.

Now, this man’s prison sentence is coming to an end. He’s just about served his time. But prosecutors in New York say Nushawn Williams has shown no remorse and has a mental abnormality that will likely lead to him to commit more crimes after he’s released. The state wants to continue to hold Williams in custody under what’s called the civil commitment statute. It’s part of The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, a federal law authorizing the indefinite civil commitment of sexual predators.

Nushawn Williams spread AIDS - on purpose

Do you think that’s fair? As the old saying goes: Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time – but Williams (right) will have served his full sentence when he faces his civil confinement trial in October. Doesn’t fair play require that we let him loose?

I say no. The safety of the masses is more important than the perceived rights of a convict. 

At his confinement trial, Williams’ lawyers are likely to argue that it is unconstitutional to indefinitely hold a citizen after they’ve fulfilled their original sentence. They may offer up an argument of double jeopardy (second criminal punishment for the same crime) or “ex post facto" (new punishment for a previous crime). Perhaps they’ll come up with a new argument, as those two have already been struck down by other courts.

Do we need more courts like this?

The prosecution will surely repeat its description of Williams as a “sex-obsessed drug user who was cited for 21 disciplinary offenses (while) in prison.” They will certainly say that just a couple of months ago, the United States Supreme Court once again ruled that Congress had the power to pass the law which calls for “sexually dangerous persons” to be held in a treatment facility until they “no longer represent a danger to others.”

Back in 1997, the youngest victim of Nushawn Williams was quoted as saying, “I want him to stay in jail, suffering. He’s slowly killing me.” Today, her location is unknown and some suspect she might have died. Williams's own family has criticized him. His younger sister told reporters that after Nushawn was diagnosed, he made it his mission to “take people with him.”

This isn’t a New York-centric dilemma. Some 20 states have passed laws permitting civil commitment of people who are considered likely to engage in “predatory acts of sexual violence” if released back into society. At last count, there were about 2,700 such prisoners being held past their sentence expiration date nationwide. Only about 10 percent ever complete treatment and win release.

I’m okay with that. These people have already proven they can’t be trusted. Why should we allow them back on the street to prey on others again?

States adopt civil commitment laws for sex offenders

In Kansas, a pedophile who admitted he’d molested children for most of his adult life was held for some 15 years past his release date. After he passed the age of 70, his health deteriorated; he suffered diabetes and strokes. Yet he still admitted he had to urge to molest when he got “stressed out.” The state reported the annual tab for keeping him in a civil commitment treatment program was $185,000 a year, more than eight times the tab for a regular prison inmate.Hey, if it keeps kids safe, that’s fine by me. The cost of continued incarceration seems well worth it when you compare it to the price his new victims would pay.

In Virginia, another convicted sex offender was so distraught when he learned he would be held past his release date that he castrated himself in his cell. After five years of treatment that he now admits helped him cope with his sex obsession, he was put under constant electronic surveillance and freed. His attorney says there have been no incidents of misbehavior since. He called the idea of holding a person in custody after completing a prison sentence “a legal black hole.”

I call it necessary for those who’ve habitually hunted down and damaged other people. You?
Critics call the idea of civil commitment a slippery slope and a step that greatly expands government’s ability to take away our liberty.

I think it’s a surefire way to keep the predators that walk among us locked away so they can’t do any more harm.


Anonymous said...

Despite advances in AIDs treatment, most of those he infected will die from it. In essence, he is a mass murderer. He should die in prison himself.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Civil commitment is an acknowledgment that the process of passing and applying laws has failed. The same criticism applies to registration schemes for child molesters etc., and "third strike" schemes.

A simpler solution is to apply a standard sentence of 100 years of prison with a minimum of 75 years before parole for any case where assault or battery occurs, is threatened, or where actions are so reckless that injury to a human is reasonably foreseeable. Apart from the usual exceptions for justification or necessity, the court can also take into consideration the youth of the defendant; any extended time that has occurred since the offense occurred; or any genuine expression of regret and offer of compensation as mitigating factors in sentencing which may reduce the penalty to a fine or similar.

After that, the parole board can deal with the offender. They will have all of the information needed and can supervise the offender both in and out of prison. They will be able to revoke parole if appropriate or impose any needed restrictions on the offender post release. They can also report to the sentencing judge and get feedback from him/her.

This will avoid all of these ridiculous situations, such as the release from a Texas prison of Coral Eugene Watts or any of the other failed efforts at redemption of the convicted.

Anonymous said...

Civil Commitment for spreading AIDS?
A good idea.
Let us jail the politicians who renamed the disease AIDS instead of its previous name GRID for Gay Related Immune Dysfunction!

Blogger said...

Did you know you can shorten your long links with LinkShrink and earn dollars for every visit to your shortened links.