 |
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
December 12, 2006 MHANYS JOINS MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO PUBLICLY CALL FOR LEGISLATURE TO ABANDON EFFORTS TO ENACT CIVIL COMMITMENT LEGISLATION: In concert with a diverse coalition of other organizations from a variety of perspectives, mental health advocates joined in holding a press conference on Monday to urge the NYS Legislature to heed the advice of experts in sex offender management not to move forward with legislation to civilly commit sexual offenders using the state inpatient psychiatric system. While many organizations were represented, just four individuals spoke, articulating the concerns of all quite well. First, NAMI- NYS’ Associate Director for Criminal Justice, Bob Corliss laid out the issue. Then, Dr. Richard Hamill, President of the New York State Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers and Anne Liske, Executive Director of the NYS Coalition Against Sexual Assault expertly made the case that moving forward with legislation to create a civil confinement process at this point is unwise and will ultimately waste resources that could be better used to prevent sexual offense from taking place and providing meaningful monitoring and supervision for all offenders. Lastly, Dr. Ed Amyot, representing the NYS Psychiatric Association, articulated the Association’s perspective that such a civil commitment law would be a misuse of the mental health system. Members of the Legislature are expected in Albany on Tuesday night and discussions on civil commitment legislation continue. Wednesday, both houses are expected to go into “Special Session” and take up the legislation on civil commitment. Then, later, the NYS Assembly is expected to pass Timothy’s Law, paving the way for the legislation to be delivered to the Governor. Timothy’s Law supporters are invited to join Tom O’Clair in the NYS Assembly Chamber Gallery to watch as the Assembly is expected to pass Timothy’s Law. MHANYS urges everyone to contact their Legislators to urge them to reject legislation to use the state mental health system to civilly commit sexual offenders. The Assembly switchboard is 518-455-4100 and the Senate switchboard is 518-455-2800. In addition, everyone is urged to contact Governor Pataki to urge him to sign Timothy’s Law. Governor Pataki can be contacted by: Calling: (518) 474-1041. Leave a message asking the Governor to sign Timothy’s Law. Writing:
Governor George E. Pataki Emailing: Go to http://161.11.121.121/govemail.
MHA OF WESTCHESTER SEEKS APPLICATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
Mr. John Ryan Or by e-mail to krzemien@mhawestchester.org.
•
Gatekeeper Program •
Physical Health – Mental Health Integration Program IN THE NEWS: Rush
to Judgment on Sex Offenders New York may soon join the 17 states that lock people up for crimes they might commit. Among the bad ideas on Gov. George Pataki’s to-do list for this week’s special legislative session is a civil confinement bill under which imprisoned sex offenders who are deemed too dangerous to be released would be held involuntarily in hospitals after their sentences end. Civil confinement has support across the political spectrum — who could possibly object to keeping sexual predators away from children, after all? — and so the negotiations in Albany are over details, like how much to protect inmates’ due-process rights, who forms the committees that make confinement decisions and what specific crimes and habits qualify someone as a sexual predator. The principle of confining prisoners after prison — blessed by the Supreme Court in 1997, in a 5-to-4 ruling upholding a Kansas civil confinement law — is not up for discussion. That is a shame, because civil confinement for sex offenders, tempting in principle, is deeply troubling in practice. It essentially means locking people up forever outside the criminal justice system for a regimen of “treatment” and “rehabilitation” that often involves neither. States that have tried it generally do not let people go; there is little incentive to do so, particularly when the psychiatric institutions are private, commercial concerns whose bottom lines depend on a steady supply of patients. Sexual compulsions are notoriously difficult to treat, and the fact that virtually nobody successfully completes treatment programs strongly suggests that this particular justification for civil confinement programs is a sham. This means that states are making an open-ended commitment of scarce resources to create an entirely separate prison system — costing as much as $100,000 a year per inmate in some states — to lock down men who are a tiny subset of the sex-crime problem. Meanwhile, a far bigger universe of molesters and rapists roam free as agencies struggle for the resources to find, prosecute, monitor and treat them all. It is possible to imagine a carefully drawn civil confinement program as a last resort for a small population of truly sick, violent predators. But by that standard, the civil confinement bill passed by the Republican-controlled Senate, and favored by Mr. Pataki, fails miserably. Instead of being narrowly focused to subdue the worst of the worst, it has a ridiculously broad definition of who is a “sexually violent predator” that includes the creeps who secretly videotape women in changing rooms. It leaves all-important decisions about a person’s mental state and likelihood of committing new crimes not in the hands of mental health experts, but with a committee of prosecutors. The Assembly bill accepts the inevitability of civil confinement and tries to ameliorate its flaws with greater due-process protections, a specific focus on truly violent offenders and a greater reliance on psychiatric diagnosis by experts. But the better solution over all would be to adopt an approach like that used in Texas, where inmates are released into outpatient therapy programs, with teams of mental health and law enforcement professionals keeping close tabs on them. The conditions of release are extremely strict, and those who violate them end up back in jail. That approach, combined with a greater emphasis on treating inmates behind bars and the imposition of far longer prison sentences on violent repeat offenders, could form the basis of a sensible policy. Mr. Pataki, who is mindful of his legacy, should remember how similar moments of cultural anxiety tend to create bad legislation — like the Rockefeller-era drug laws — that are regretted for generations. A rushed, shabby civil confinement law would be a lasting blot on his record.
Civil War Gov. George Pataki is calling lawmakers back to Albany Wednesday for a special session. Civil confinement is supposed to be the only item on his agenda. The governor apparently wants to make civil confinement - committing dangerous sexual predators to institutions until they are deemed safe to return to communities - his swan song. It has been a tough sell, however - one that is only a part of the solution for making communities safer from sexual offenders. Pataki hasn't been able to get the legislation through the Democratic-controlled Assembly. Last year, he went so far as to have sexual offenders civilly committed to mental health institutions by using the state's mental health laws. The state's highest court rebuffed him. The Assembly has not seen civil confinement as the magic bullet to protect communities from violent predators. It has instead pushed for lengthier sentences and lifetime supervision of some offenders, although it seriously considered civil confinement for the first time this year. In truth, civil confinement cannot keep communities absolutely safe from sexual predators. Not by itself. The state has thousands of sex offenders to which the law would not apply because they have already been released. Onondaga County has more than 300 such Level 3 offenders - those who have committed the most heinous sexual crimes, often against children. While the Supreme Court has upheld civil confinement laws, which exist in at least 16 states, implementation can be tricky. And treatment, a critical part of any civil confinement effort, can range from $100,000 to $200,000 per offender and will not help every one. Still, research has shown that some offenders can be helped. Those who cannot should not be allowed to live in unguarded communities. New York state lawmakers should use the governor's special session to come up with some kind of compromise. The sticking points seem surmountable - they have centered around the appeals process, treatment options and who makes the determination for confinement. Every effort should be made to protect offenders' rights, but there must be recognition that sex crimes are in a unique category. Sexual predators are four times more likely to commit new crimes than other offender populations. State lawmakers should draft a reasonable civil confinement law, then use the $10 million in federal funding available annually over the next four years to implement the program. They should carefully consider Pataki's earlier proposal to build a special facility for civil confinement offenders. They should also: • Pursue lifetime supervision of certain offenders who may not qualify as predators deserving of civil confinement. • Consider global monitoring systems to tract offenders. • Pass a standard residency statute. The town of Cicero and other municipalities have taken it upon themselves to restrict where sex offenders can live. Most have acted because the state Legislature has not. • Review community notification procedures. Most of the onus is on citizens to figure out where sex offenders are living - mainly by checking the state sex offender registry Web site. Perhaps that is why Binghamton has a cable TV show that broadcasts sex offender information. State lawmakers cannot write one law that will stop all dangerous sexual predators. They can use a number of strategies to keep their constituents - especially the younger ones - safer.
One day recently, a local man with mental illness read of a sale on some merchandise he'd been needing at a clothing outlet and decided he'd gather up his meager resources and go make a purchase. Besides tending to his own needs, he was eager to buy some items as gifts for a few friends. One of the symptoms of his illness is an inability to function well in crowds. He dreads such confrontations, as noise, germs and other ingredients of social mingling press in on him. Still, he needed these goods, and this was a good chance to acquire them at a price he could afford. He'd have to summon his courage and brave the close quarters. If you saw him, his appearance might put you on alert that he wasn't like most people. His clothes are worn, and he always has rubber gloves to fend off germs and dental floss tied onto his glasses stems to keep them in place. He represents no potential harm to anyone. On the contrary: As much as passers by would like to avoid contact with him, he is even more eager for solitude. According to local mental-health experts 90 percent of mentally ill people are non-violent, if taking their medication. That may compare favorably with the rest of the population. He is a bright man and very kind and considerate. If people got to know him, most would naturally like him and appreciate his keen sense of humor. Unfortunately, very few ever do come into his circle of acquaintances, because he is so bound by his insufferable fear of these contacts. He planned his shopping expedition carefully, as he always must. He'd go to the store around closing time, figuring it would be emptying out and he would have the fewest chances of having to meet anyone but the clerk. He's very conscious of the fact he might be keeping an employee beyond his or her scheduled departure from work, but he simply couldn't abide being shoulder to shoulder with many shoppers. Arriving at the last moment, he'd hurry through his deliberations and get through the shopping as quickly as possible. He did that. He took a pile of the goods he wanted, hurried them to the counter and paid for them. He got out into the parking lot and, as he always does, sprayed himself with disinfectant, hoping to rout the germs he'd just accumulated on his person. When he got the goods home, though, he realized they were of lesser quality than he'd craved. He was determined to return and exchange the items for better, realizing he'd have to pay more. That was all right, though — he wanted the gifts to be of appropriate quality. When he returned to the store the next day, he was met by a clerk, who demanded to know what he was doing there. The man replied that he was not satisfied with his purchase of the previous day, and could he make an exchange? The clerk summoned someone in authority, who would not hear the man's explanation, instead warning him to get out in 20 seconds or the police would be summoned. When the man tried to plead his case, he was ordered to shut up and get out. The man was hurt, humiliated and deeply offended. He was reviled because of his appearance, which he was powerless to do anything about. And he has every right to seek satisfaction for his purchases. We would implore everyone when confronting a person with mental illness to try to be understanding of the person's condition. Most victims of mental illness are of no more danger than anyone else, and probably less. They may require some common courtesies and understanding, as we all do. Possibly, they may need some modest accommodations for their condition, although probably not. Paranoia and outrage are inappropriate responses. They are just trying to get along in the world. On that, they are not alone, though too many thoughtless people would have them believe they are.
ALBANY, Dec. 11 — Lawmakers will face several major unresolved issues as they return here on Wednesday for a special session that will be the swan song of Gov. George E. Pataki’s administration. Mr. Pataki is calling the Legislature back ostensibly to make a last-ditch effort at passing a law establishing legal procedures to allow for the civil confinement of sex offenders in mental institutions after their prison terms end. But there are several other major proposals on the table, including Mr. Pataki’s attempt to increase the number of charter schools and the desire of many lawmakers to get a pay raise. Mr. Pataki is also continuing to stock the boards of public authorities, commissions and councils with his own appointees before he leaves office, and they require approval by the Republican-led Senate, where such appointments have not faced much resistance in the past. The governor would also like to act on a recent report by a state commission that recommended closing at least nine hospitals in the state and merging several others. “There’s a great deal still going on and a great deal I’m still fighting to achieve, and will until the last, Dec. 31,” Mr. Pataki said on Monday, during the dedication of a new stretch of Hudson River Park. The Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, could normally be expected to resist his old nemesis, Mr. Pataki, on many of these issues, considering that another Democrat, Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer, is waiting to take office on Jan. 1. But Mr. Pataki has a potent trump card. Legislators have not had a pay increase in eight years, and Mr. Spitzer has said he does not support one. Mr. Pataki agreed to the last pay raise, in 1998, as part of a deal to get lawmakers to approve charter schools. Now he wants more charter schools, and some lawmakers are hoping for a repeat of their 1998 deal. “The speaker has indicated publicly his support,” Eileen Larrabee, a spokeswoman for Mr. Silver, said of the pay increases. “He thinks members deserve one because they haven’t had one for eight years.” Mr. Pataki appeared to leave the door open to the raise in remarks he made last week, saying of the issue, “I’ve never drawn a line in the sand.” Among the proposals being floated by the Legislature would be a pay raise described as a one-time cost-of-living adjustment. Until Monday, there had been little in the way of substantive talks between the governor and the Legislature, in part because Mr. Silver has been traveling in Israel. But he was back on Monday and the sides were talking, though it was hard to tell if everything or nothing would get done, as is often the case in Albany. The issue of pay raises has been a controversial one. Last week, the Citizens Budget Commission, a business-backed fiscal monitoring group, said that lawmakers should address the state’s mounting debt before raising their salaries. New York legislators have the third-highest level of base pay, $79,500, trailing only California and Michigan, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. That pay is typically increased by stipends for leadership positions like committee chairmanships. As for civil confinement, Assembly Democrats have been under pressure to settle differences on the issue with Republicans. Jeanine F. Pirro, the Republican who lost a bid for attorney general, said last year, “That’s a difference between Democrats and Republicans — we don’t want them next door molesting children and murdering women.” The Assembly eventually passed a bill, but it differed from the Republican-led Senate’s bill, and a public conference committee never ironed out the differences. Some Assembly Democrats have had qualms about confining people who have already served their sentences. This week some civil libertarians and psychiatrists opposed to the measure made arguments aimed largely at the undecided Assembly members. An analysis by the New York Civil Liberties Union found what it termed “significant racial disparities” among the sex offenders deemed to pose the greatest risk. Blacks make up 37.2 percent of those sex offenders, called level three sex offenders, the analysis found, while making up 15.9 percent of the state’s population. Dr. Richard B. Krueger, an associate professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University and the vice president of the New York State chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, warned that the civil confinement legislation being considered has not been proved to be effective. He said that the state should consider lengthening prison sentences for sexual offenders and instituting lifetime parole or probation before sending them to costly beds in health care facilities after their sentences. “It seems to me that there is a rush here,” he said. “Nobody really looked more broadly at ways to do this more efficiently.”
A coalition of groups is asking the legislature not to pass Governor Pataki's bill to involuntarily commit sexual predators to mental hospitals, saying it wastes money and does not address the real problems with sex offenders. Governor Pataki has called the legislature back into a special session on Wednesday to pass his bill that would commit some sex offenders to mental hospitals after their prison term has run out. Pataki has argued that the law is needed to protect society from harmful sexual predators who may commit crimes again. But a coalition of groups calls the plan wasteful and expensive. Robert Corliss, with the Alliance for the Mentally Ill, says the law is a "money pit" and a "bad deal" for the taxpayers. Dr. Richard Hamill, President of the New York State Alliance of Sex Offender Provider Services, says the law could cost as much as a quarter million dollars a year per sex offender to implement. He compares it to the harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws passed in the 1970's, which most policy makers now believe were costly, and did not cut down on drug use or related crimes. Hamill, who has spent his career working with sex offenders, says a better alternative is closer supervision. He recommends lifetime parole, something that several other states do, and a specialized treatment program that's been found to cut recidivism rates in half. Ann Liske, with the New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault, a victim's rights group, has in the past been a supporter of Pataki's policies on sex crimes. This time, she says, the Governor's proposal is misguided, and will do nothing to address the 80% of sex offenses that she says are perpetrated by friends, acquaintances and neighbors, and that largely go unreported. “Adults all need to be aware of offending behavior that's going on very close to them, not far away and not pinned on a few bad people somewhere on the other side of town," she said Others accuse Governor Pataki of trying to create a "political category" of mental disorders, and compare the practice to that of the former Soviet Union, and China, who often send political dissidents to mental hospitals. Dr. Edmond Amyot, a psychiatrist active in the New York State Psychiatric Association, says sex offenders should be given longer prison sentences for their crimes instead of using the mental health system for what he says is a criminal problem. Dr. Amyot says many of the sexual predators that Pataki would like to target for involuntary commitment do not have diagnosable mental illnesses, and don't belong in psychiatric institutions. Both houses of the legislature have already agreed in principle that it's a good idea to involuntarily commit some sex offenders to mental hospitals. The major difference between Pataki's bill, which is backed by Senate Republicans, and the Assembly Democrat's version, is whether there should be jury trials to decide whether the sexual predator should be committed. The Assembly version would also provide for lifetime parole supervision for offenders that do not end up in mental hospitals.
Governor Pataki has less than three weeks left in office, but that's still ample time to trade a legislative pay raise for civil commitment legislation that could lock up hundreds of sex offenders in mental hospitals after they have completed their prison sentences. Thus poised to make the biggest legislative mistake since the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the Legislature returns to Albany on Wednesday for a special session called by the governor. The model for passing civil confinement legislation is all too familiar. It began with whipping up public fear with a false message about the danger of sex offenders. Then the tabloid newspapers piled on. Next the opinion of a populace was legislatively surveyed through "push polls," and the skewed polling data exploited using electoral strategies to frighten the timid, undermine the opposition and strategically position incumbents. The informed position of treatment advocates was publicly marginalized, legislative debate was restricted and a joint conference committee met about six times with all the genuine deliberation of an inquisitorial show trial. Access to information by rank and file members of the Legislature was and is still controlled. The next step in this all too familiar approach will be to have a rush bill drafted after cutting a deal unrelated to the merits of the legislation. Does this sound too cynical? Rather, it sounds too accurate. For too long it has been a description of how criminal justice policy for poor people has been made in Albany. This is the kind of legislating and bullying that has to stop with the new administration. Legislators should usher in the new era at the Special Session by rejecting the proposed civil commitment legislation. Why? Because they should refuse to trade individual liberty and common sense for salary increases, and because the legislation is bad. The proponents of civil confinement legislation say it is necessary to protect the public. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Sexual abuse treatment professionals believe that the best way to treat sex offenders is to prevent such behavior, monitor them closely in the community and provide meaningful ongoing treatment. Politicians say sex offenders have high recidivism rates, can't be treated and must be locked up. The truth is the majority of sex offenses are committed in the home by people who know or are related to each other, and the offenders are never even arrested. Many sex offenses occur between family members; in such cases the threat of civil confinement may actually run the risk of causing victims not to report for fear of the lifetime civil commitment of those family members. It is a myth that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. Sex offenders represent a wide range of behaviors, many of which are successfully treated. Contrary to popular mythology, the recidivism rates for sex offenders are substantially lower than the rates for many other offenders; lower than that of persons convicted of robbery, burglary, car theft and weapons offenses, and among the lowest recidivism rates of criminal offenders generally. Success has been demonstrated with intensive community treatment in states with a multidisciplinary, aggressive system of monitoring, supervision and treatment. The majority of states do not have civil commitment laws and at least three of the 16 that do are retreating from them because of their inordinate expense. In New York, the governor and the Legislature have proposed the broadest and most expensive civil commitment law in the country. Pataki projects only some of the costs at $200,000 per person per year. The Assembly and Senate bills are both so broad they encompass statutory rape, youthful sexual experimentation, and behaviors that are not likely to be repeated. Unless these bills are more carefully limited, they potentially threaten the lifetime incarceration of thousands of people. Only those inside the Capitol perimeter, bunkered in the Legislative Office building, believe in this unwise legislation. Almost every statewide organization that has direct experience with sex offenders opposes civil commitment legislation, including advocates for sexual assault victims, sex offender management experts, mental health professionals, civil libertarians and defense attorneys. It is wrong to pass this legislation in its current form and wrong to hobble the new governor, Eliot Spitzer, and the new attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, with this ill-conceived, expansive, inordinately expensive law. But it is most wrong, at the midnight hour of an administration that for 12 years has used human beings as bargaining chips for political gain, to pass this legislation in exchange for a legislative pay raise. Jonathan E. Gradess is executive director of the New York State Defenders Association. |
||||
 |
||||
