Full Version: Man faces jail beyond length of sentence
QUOTE(Rutland Herald / Associated Press)
CONCORD, N.H. — Lawyers for a convicted rapist being held beyond his prison term under a new state law have asked a judge to dismiss his case.
William DeCato is scheduled for trial on June 4 under a law that allows sexually violent people to be held beyond their prison sentence if they suffer a mental abnormality that makes them likely to commit more sexual violence.
"In the end, this case is nothing more than an effort … to extend Mr. DeCato's confinement in violation of his constitutional rights," public defender Mark Larsen said.
William DeCato is scheduled for trial on June 4 under a law that allows sexually violent people to be held beyond their prison sentence if they suffer a mental abnormality that makes them likely to commit more sexual violence.
"In the end, this case is nothing more than an effort … to extend Mr. DeCato's confinement in violation of his constitutional rights," public defender Mark Larsen said.
After reading the linked articles, kindly consider the following questions:
1) Do you believe that DeCato's Constitutional rights are being violated?
2) If so, which rights?
3) Are laws of this sort inherently misandric, and thus a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
4) If the court's strike down the sexual predator law, how would you recommend addressing the problem (repeat sexual assaults) these laws are aimed at?
1) Do you believe that DeCato's Constitutional rights are being violated?
I believe so. See below.
2) If so, which rights?
Let's look at the government's own justification for this.
This astonishes me. Let me get this straight; we're throwing someone in jail not because they actually did something; but because they might do something. This would seem to violate the well-established right to avoid prior restraint.
If a person, because of mental illness, is a genuine threat to self or society, there are ways to have such a person committed to a mental institutuion involuntarily. This would seem to be enough of a way to deal with genuinely dangerous people before they go out of control.
3) Are laws of this sort inherently misandric, and thus a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
I don't think so, since there seems to be no indication that such a law would not be used against a woman considered to be a danger to the community. The fact that the majority of sexually violent crimes are committed by men is why such a law might seem targeted at men, but there is nothing inherently sexist about the law. There are many other reasons to oppose such a law, but this is not one of them.
4) If the court's strike down the sexual predator law, how would you recommend addressing the problem (repeat sexual assaults) these laws are aimed at?
There are a number of ways. Long sentences for actual crimes (not the future possibility of crimes); mandatory psychological counseling for those convicted of such crimes; strict regulations for those on parole; and so on.
I believe so. See below.
2) If so, which rights?
Let's look at the government's own justification for this.
QUOTE
George Stewart, a lawyer with the county attorney's office, said DeCato is being held under the new law for being a present danger to society, not for his past actions.
This astonishes me. Let me get this straight; we're throwing someone in jail not because they actually did something; but because they might do something. This would seem to violate the well-established right to avoid prior restraint.
If a person, because of mental illness, is a genuine threat to self or society, there are ways to have such a person committed to a mental institutuion involuntarily. This would seem to be enough of a way to deal with genuinely dangerous people before they go out of control.
3) Are laws of this sort inherently misandric, and thus a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
I don't think so, since there seems to be no indication that such a law would not be used against a woman considered to be a danger to the community. The fact that the majority of sexually violent crimes are committed by men is why such a law might seem targeted at men, but there is nothing inherently sexist about the law. There are many other reasons to oppose such a law, but this is not one of them.
4) If the court's strike down the sexual predator law, how would you recommend addressing the problem (repeat sexual assaults) these laws are aimed at?
There are a number of ways. Long sentences for actual crimes (not the future possibility of crimes); mandatory psychological counseling for those convicted of such crimes; strict regulations for those on parole; and so on.
Actually VS- it is quite common under commitment laws all over the nation- I have to ask the question- are they extending his sentence- or court commiting him to some kind of facility? The trend seems to be, for untreated pedophiles (which means ALL pedophiles really- the only real treatment for a pedophile is death 
)- seems to be a court commital to a total lock down "mental health facility" where they have the burden of proof that they are no longer a potential threat to society. Given thier past history- it is damned unlikely that they ever see life outside the walls.
I would much rather prefer to see just life without possibility of parole for pedophiles- I don't see why we just don't enact that as a law instead- makes more sense to me?
1) Do you believe that DeCato's Constitutional rights are being violated?
Depends if how this law is really written- I don't see the legalese anywhere that spells out if it is a "civil commitment"- which has been upheld in the constitution etc- forever. If, in your trail, you argue a lessor sentence because of "diminished capacity"- most states shift the burden of proof of harm at the end of the sentence- some states are very narrowly defined, some allow leeway.
2) If so, which rights?
Is this a civil commitment? Then no, because the defendent has the same rights as a minor child- and can be a ward of the state.
3) Are laws of this sort inherently misandric, and thus a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
Very much so- predatory females are rarely given as strong as a sentence- look at the rash of teacher and very young student boys- there seems to be little outrage. I would, however, consider it statuatory rape if a 25 year old female school teacher talked my 11 year old boy into sex.
Female sex crimes are under investigated and under reported, in a big way. I have had kids that have been raped by thier mother, one boy was pimped out by thier mother- to women and men- and she never went to jail. Simply- there is no will in this nation to prosecute female offenders for a variety of hienous crimes. The things I have had to listen to in my job that are perpetrated by women, and never charged, until there is a death or a sex ring exposed- is mind boggling. And they almost always give the woman accomplice some kind of immunity to testify if the children live, and give her a lessor sentence. The defense is always "the man made me do it"- though we are starting to get through to the public that it is frequently not true- just a good excuse. In fact, she very well may be the ringleader.
For you Canadians and crime buffs- go do a web search of the "ken and barbie murders"- Barbara Holmka is walking free today- after luring her own sister into sex and death. They suppressed the video evidence of her having some real big time fun killing and having sex with females. The guy will never see the light of day- she is walking free today.
I can list off at least 30 female sexual deviant predators, having sex with thier kids and watching porn with them- that never saw a jail cell. Too bad it is not legal for me to list them though- you see, "confidentiality" rules- like HIPPA- protect sexual predators, big time. In fact, my own name for HIPPA is "that law that is used to shelter predators from the public eye"
4) If the court's strike down the sexual predator law, how would you recommend addressing the problem (repeat sexual assaults) these laws are aimed at?
If it is a court commital, and not a sentence extender of sometime as it is being portrayed- then the court won't even hear it- it is already case law. If the reverse is true- I don't see why they bothered- it is much easier to go with the civil commitment- and much harder for the defendent to beat.
)- seems to be a court commital to a total lock down "mental health facility" where they have the burden of proof that they are no longer a potential threat to society. Given thier past history- it is damned unlikely that they ever see life outside the walls.I would much rather prefer to see just life without possibility of parole for pedophiles- I don't see why we just don't enact that as a law instead- makes more sense to me?
1) Do you believe that DeCato's Constitutional rights are being violated?
Depends if how this law is really written- I don't see the legalese anywhere that spells out if it is a "civil commitment"- which has been upheld in the constitution etc- forever. If, in your trail, you argue a lessor sentence because of "diminished capacity"- most states shift the burden of proof of harm at the end of the sentence- some states are very narrowly defined, some allow leeway.
2) If so, which rights?
Is this a civil commitment? Then no, because the defendent has the same rights as a minor child- and can be a ward of the state.
3) Are laws of this sort inherently misandric, and thus a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
Very much so- predatory females are rarely given as strong as a sentence- look at the rash of teacher and very young student boys- there seems to be little outrage. I would, however, consider it statuatory rape if a 25 year old female school teacher talked my 11 year old boy into sex.
Female sex crimes are under investigated and under reported, in a big way. I have had kids that have been raped by thier mother, one boy was pimped out by thier mother- to women and men- and she never went to jail. Simply- there is no will in this nation to prosecute female offenders for a variety of hienous crimes. The things I have had to listen to in my job that are perpetrated by women, and never charged, until there is a death or a sex ring exposed- is mind boggling. And they almost always give the woman accomplice some kind of immunity to testify if the children live, and give her a lessor sentence. The defense is always "the man made me do it"- though we are starting to get through to the public that it is frequently not true- just a good excuse. In fact, she very well may be the ringleader.
For you Canadians and crime buffs- go do a web search of the "ken and barbie murders"- Barbara Holmka is walking free today- after luring her own sister into sex and death. They suppressed the video evidence of her having some real big time fun killing and having sex with females. The guy will never see the light of day- she is walking free today.
I can list off at least 30 female sexual deviant predators, having sex with thier kids and watching porn with them- that never saw a jail cell. Too bad it is not legal for me to list them though- you see, "confidentiality" rules- like HIPPA- protect sexual predators, big time. In fact, my own name for HIPPA is "that law that is used to shelter predators from the public eye"
4) If the court's strike down the sexual predator law, how would you recommend addressing the problem (repeat sexual assaults) these laws are aimed at?
If it is a court commital, and not a sentence extender of sometime as it is being portrayed- then the court won't even hear it- it is already case law. If the reverse is true- I don't see why they bothered- it is much easier to go with the civil commitment- and much harder for the defendent to beat.
QUOTE
This astonishes me. Let me get this straight; we're throwing someone in jail not because they actually did something; but because they might do something. This would seem to violate the well-established right to avoid prior restraint.
If a person, because of mental illness, is a genuine threat to self or society, there are ways to have such a person committed to a mental institutuion involuntarily. This would seem to be enough of a way to deal with genuinely dangerous people before they go out of control.
If a person, because of mental illness, is a genuine threat to self or society, there are ways to have such a person committed to a mental institutuion involuntarily. This would seem to be enough of a way to deal with genuinely dangerous people before they go out of control.
The problem is that sexual predators cannot be “cured” and most will re offend as soon as released. The right course of action is life in prison without parole but many states seem unable to pass such laws.
Add to this the fact that people are tired of seeing these perverts re offend and demand that they be kept off the street. The result is this type of law. The man is not “crazy” in the classic sense of the term (and legally) – he is a dangerous sexual predator – the law is a good one.
Ted- the real problem- and the really dangerous part of this equation IS that most pedophiles have another mental illness diagnosis- this is what creates this whole, untracked and illegal TO track, sub group of pedophiles and abusers. HIPPA keeps them from being reported on- we need a loophole in HIPPA that allows us to out these men AND women.
But, as we now know, and what screws up law when we try to fix it- the mentally ill have made it clear that THEY want to decide thier treatment- even if it means no treatment at all- so, so we allow them to commit crimes simply because they get to make the decision to remain ill, but no consequences for them when they make these decisions?
ALSO- laws regarding competancy and culpability are done piece meal and in a haphazard fashion. This means lots of ambiguous and confusing language on the nature of some very important legal matters.
Alaska has changed it's laws due to a crime of murder commited against four teenagers by a very evil sociopathic AND schizzophrenic man- NOW- we have "guilty but insane".
This is a great way to deal with these kinds of crimes- because, in the sentencing guidelines- ARE heavier sentences for being mentally ill rather than less harsh ones- which I agree with 210%.
At the end of a 99 year sentence- they have to prove they are not a continueing threat to society- that is the way the law should run- at the end of top time, they had better be ready to prove that they are not "commitable" to a forensic psych unit.
But, as we now know, and what screws up law when we try to fix it- the mentally ill have made it clear that THEY want to decide thier treatment- even if it means no treatment at all- so, so we allow them to commit crimes simply because they get to make the decision to remain ill, but no consequences for them when they make these decisions?
ALSO- laws regarding competancy and culpability are done piece meal and in a haphazard fashion. This means lots of ambiguous and confusing language on the nature of some very important legal matters.
Alaska has changed it's laws due to a crime of murder commited against four teenagers by a very evil sociopathic AND schizzophrenic man- NOW- we have "guilty but insane".
This is a great way to deal with these kinds of crimes- because, in the sentencing guidelines- ARE heavier sentences for being mentally ill rather than less harsh ones- which I agree with 210%.
At the end of a 99 year sentence- they have to prove they are not a continueing threat to society- that is the way the law should run- at the end of top time, they had better be ready to prove that they are not "commitable" to a forensic psych unit.
QUOTE
Ted- the real problem- and the really dangerous part of this equation IS that most pedophiles have another mental illness diagnosis- this is what creates this whole, untracked and illegal TO track, sub group of pedophiles and abusers. HIPPA keeps them from being reported on- we need a loophole in HIPPA that allows us to out these men AND women.
But, as we now know, and what screws up law when we try to fix it- the mentally ill have made it clear that THEY want to decide thier treatment- even if it means no treatment at all- so, so we allow them to commit crimes simply because they get to make the decision to remain ill, but no consequences for them when they make these decisions?
But, as we now know, and what screws up law when we try to fix it- the mentally ill have made it clear that THEY want to decide thier treatment- even if it means no treatment at all- so, so we allow them to commit crimes simply because they get to make the decision to remain ill, but no consequences for them when they make these decisions?
I agree. I have two PhD psychologists as friends and they maintain that pedophiles and sexual predators in general are never “cured”. Thus regardless of other mental issues we must keep these dangerous people off the street.
Many states, faced with public outrage, and ranting by people like O’Rielly have moved top try and deal with the problem.
IMHO anyone who is a sexual predator should be kept in prison (for life) regardless of other mental issues. To do otherwise is to endanger all of us including our kids.
• Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.
• On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence.
• Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.
• The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.