|
In the 1980s and 1990s, the California Department of Corrections ("CDC"), through the political efforts of the guards union and some get tough on crime politicians, was able to expand the State's prison system to the largest in the nation. Now, it appears the California Department of Mental Health ("DMH"), a State department that has not expanded in several decades, has, in the midst of a severe budget deficit problem, mounted a major expansion project. This was done by utilizing a General Fund expenditure of approximately 350 million dollars, during the fiscal year 2000-2001, to construct a new 1500 bed facility at Coalinga to house Sexually Violent Predators ("SVP"). (See FN. 1.) Not only did the DMH take lessons in expansion and empire building from the CDC, but the DMH and CDC are in partnership together in the operation of this new facility. A facility which is located on the grounds and adjacent to the CDC's Pleasant Valley State Prison, and which will provide new jobs for both CDC guards and an expanding DMH. All of this bureaucratic expansion is being done at very high taxpayer expense, and at the costs of all those other services competing for funds, e.g., education, city and county governments and services, services for the poor, etc. All those we hear in the news on a daily basis are suffering massive cutbacks and even closures. The DMH learned how to gain funding for expansion from the CDC, and did follow that blueprint. Through utilizing the technique of inflaming the taxpaying public with rhetoric and sophistry, the interests groups applied fear mongering about perceived, but not necessarily real, threats to public safety. The public then blindly signed a blank check. Through what can only be described as a clever advertising campaign, the term "Sexually Violent Predator" was born. Each one of these three words alone will inflame one's sensibilities, and when all three words are combined together, the term is so inflammatory that all reason is put aside with the average citizen not looking beyond this label. The money is then given without question, and the expensive bureaucratic expansion is achieved without question or public oversight. The intent of the SVP laws are not without merit, however they are being perverted in the name of bureaucratic expansion, jobs, and job security at huge taxpayer expense. While true SVPs do exist, they are a very small number of individuals. Not enough true SVPs exist to fill the new facility when it is completed. However, due to the huge financial incentives to all involved, from the prosecuting counties to the DMH and CDC, many individuals are being incarcerated under the guise of being an SVP, but who in reality are neither violent or predatory types. They are simply criminals who made poor decisions. One would think that from the common definitions of the words in the term "Sexually Violent Predator," that logic would require such a person to be both violent and a predator before being labeled as such and incarcerated. Not so! Just committing a sex crime is defined by the politicians as being violent, even though the crime event may have been consensual, except that the victim was a minor. No actual proof of violence need be shown. The same with true predatory behavior which need not be shown. Thus, it is a public misconception that those individuals whom the State has locked up under SVP laws are the violent predator originally targeted by the law. Many of those incarcerated are not the type of dangerous person pictured by the average citizen and often highlighted in the media: the violent rapist, the child molester who snatches children off the street, or who climbs in windows to violently assault or molest. The reason the SVP laws are being applied in an overbroad manner are mainly associated with money and who benefits financially. In addition to the obvious job incentives to the DMH and CDC bureaucrats, their unions, and their contract psychologist evaluators, there is also a benefit to local counties who receive state funding to file and prosecute SVP commitment petitions. Some of these prosecutors also were unhappy with the original criminal sentence the person received for crimes committed many years ago, often through plea bargains, and now see the SVP laws as a means to keep these individuals incarcerated indefinitely. This should offend the sensibilities of all Americans. Our country was founded to get away from just such tyranny. We, as a nation, believed that once a person served his or her time in prison for a crime, that his or her debt to society was paid. Not so under the SVP laws. The person's second period of incarceration for the very same crimes is now done under the guise of a "civil action." Apparently, double jeopardy and double punishment only apply to criminal law, thus allowing the government to double dip by using "civil law." To accomplish this the psychological industry has created entirely new categories of mental illness called "Mental Abnormalities" or "Personality Disorders." These new classifications are a billion dollar a year industry for psychologists. In California alone, the DMH now has a panel of approximately forty contract psychologists who are earning in the neighborhood of $300,000 each per year to place a "Mental Abnormality" label and diagnosis on potential SVP candidates based on crimes which occurred decades ago. By making such a diagnosis today, after reading the person's old historical records, this diagnosis is thus considered "current." It is a sham. Next, the potential SVP is subjected to a jury trial where the prosecutor inflames the passions of the jury with the graphic details of the decades old crime for which the defendant has already completely served his prison sentence. Then the prosecutor presents the contract DMH psychologists ("Experts") who attest to the defendant's mental abnormality, and through utilizing actuarials predict that because the person committed crimes decades in the past, that person is "likely" to commit crimes at some obscure time in the future. Therefore, the person must be locked up in a mental hospital. At no time in the process do these Experts ever show any current symptoms from which the person presently suffers, it is all based upon history. These actuarial based predictions are dubious at best for this application, and were never intended for the purposes for which they are now being used -- to take away one's liberty. Actuarials were originally developed by the insurance industry to predict risk assessment for groups of people -- not individuals. For example, do statistics show that as a group people who own a high performance red sports car are more likely to drive fast, receive speeding tickets, and get into accidents than is a senior citizen who owns a compact economy car. Yes they do. But they do not show whether or not any particular individual will fit into this group pattern. There will be many sports car drivers who do not have accidents, and also many compact car drivers who do have accidents. Applying such group risks to individuals is simply too error prone to be the basis for incarceration. The actuarials utilized by the DMH Experts to predict risk assessment for sex offenders were originally designed for the Canadian Government to assess parolees for appropriate programs to help them reintegrate back into society. The California DMH then contracted with the Canadian actuarial developer, Dr. R. Karl Hansen, to approve his actuarial for its new use in civil commitments. Again a financial incentive allowed the DMH to "purchase" another tool for use in the expansion program. The public is being bilked into believing that they are safe now that all these old sex offenders are now being locked up through civil commitments. However, not only are the crimes often decades old, but many of those targeted for civil commitment are likewise old. Approximately 25 percent are senior citizens or persons with serious or debilitating medical problems. (See FN. 2.) The authorities are not presenting reality to the taxpaying public. Statistics released by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") in November, 2003, show that among released prisoners, 87 percent of new sex offenses were committed by non-sex offenders. Persons who had not previously been convicted of a sex offense. (See FN. 3.) This DOJ Report also shows that older persons are at a very low risk rate of reoffense. It is simply unrealistic, and certainly un-American to continue incarcerating individuals based upon dubious predictions of the future. It is unreliable and very very expensive to taxpayers, and the taxpayers get little to nothing for their investment. FOOTNOTES: FN. 1. Press Release dated August 2, 2001, Nora R. Romero, Chief, Office of Community and Consumer Relations, touting the construction of the new DMH facility at Coalinga, California, quoting Steven Mayberg, Ph.D., Director of DMH, "The State is in a position to provide many new jobs and services that will significantly boost other sectors of the local economy." FN. 2. "Age and Sexual Recidivism: A comparison of Rapists and Child Molesters," 2001-01, by R. Karl Hanson, Department of Solicitor General Canada. The Report, among other things, states, "Sexual offenders released after the age of 60 showed very low recidivism rates (3.8%). FN. 3. "Recidivism of Sex offenders Released from
Prison in 1994." NOJ198281. November 2003, U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics ("BJS"), by Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., Erica
L. Schmitt, and Matthew R. Durose. A report utilizing data from 15 states,
with California contributing 34% of the data base, tracking a total of
272,111 men, with 9,691 of whom were sex offenders. This report showed
older sex offenders had the very low recidivism rate of 3.3%, and that
as an overall group, sex offenders had the lowest recidivism rate of any
criminal category.
By Thomas B. Watson
|