NARSOL condemns civil commitment practices

By NARSOL . . . In view of recent developments in the case of Galen Baughman in Virginia, NARSOL restates its unequivocal opposition to the civil commitment process occurring in at least twenty states and in the federal system. Paul Shannon, NARSOL’s board chair, states, “NARSOL opposes the practice of civilly committing sexual offenders to a locked facility after they have completed serving their prison sentence. If in fact the offender has a mental disorder, he/she should be treated in the mental health system rather than incarcerated.”

 Shannon’s remarks are in response to Virginia’s effort to designate Mr. Baughman a sexually violent predator (SVP), which would result in indefinite and possibly lifetime confinement. Shannon said, “Although NARSOL does not condone the violations of supervision established in Mr. Baughman’s case, we are deeply troubled by the effort to designate him as an SVP.”

NARSOL’s board of directors opposes the Attorney General’s petition for the following reasons:

  • This is the second attempt to commit Mr. Baughman even though there has not been a subsequent “predicate” sexual offense, which means this effort should be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Attorney General is attempting to have a second bite at the apple since the first attempt to commit Mr. Baughman failed back in 2012.
  • Baughman’s publicly available record reveals no history of violence. Violence is defined as, “The use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.”
  • The Static-99 risk assessment tool which Virginia heavily relies on has a built-in bias against males with male victims.
  • Despite the fact that the state of Virginia has been on notice since January 2012 that significant problems exist with their SVP commitment program, they have failed to take actions to improve the system. In fact, the Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), issued a 202-page report identifying significant issues in need of reform. The full report can be viewed at

Some key issues identified by the JLARC Report are:

  1. Virginia’s switch to the Static-99 actuarial risk assessment instrument and score of “5” resulted in a 450 percent increase in the number of offenders eligible for civil commitment as sexually violent predators (SVP). (Chapter 1)
  2. Virginia’s actuarial risk assessment screening approach is flawed, in part because it does not allow qualified professionals to use their professional judgment to review certain high-risk offenders, including those who state their intent to reoffend. (Chapter 3)
  3. Virginia’s risk assessment process and civil commitment proceedings rely heavily on expert SVP evaluators. These evaluators find offenders to be SVPs at widely varying rates. (Chapter 4)
  4. Virginia’s risk assessment process does not provide enough flexibility and does not sufficiently use consensus to decide whether to proceed with the civil commitment process. (Chapter 4)
  5. Virginia’s civil commitment program will continue to grow over time. However, the rate of program growth can be reduced if certain program changes, such as those recommended, are made. (Chapter 9)

As stated above, NARSOL opposes the use of civil commitment as presently implemented after a person has completed his or her court-imposed sentence. But in view of the numerous deficiencies in Virginia’s present SVP commitment process identified by the JLARC report, NARSOL submits that the following steps, if taken by the Attorney General, would be a major improvement over present policy:  (1) seek commitment only of those individuals who have actually engaged in physical violence and when a current risk assessment indicates a propensity for future violence clearly exists; (2) advocate for reforms, including reducing the heavy reliance on the Static-99; and (3) seek changes to the current system so there is more flexibility in deciding whether to proceed with the civil commitment process.


Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Viewing 18 reply threads
  • Author
    • #44834 Reply

      Judith Levine

      I was thrilled to read Paul Shannon’s clear statement of opposition to civil commitment and support of mental health treatment in the community. full stop.

      Then, at the end, NARSOL backtracks and says that, well, maybe civil commitment is okay, if you just make this or that little change.

      No. Civil commitment is wrong. It is unconstitutional preventive detention, a violation of one of the most basic human and civil rights there is. It is cruel and unusual punishment. It is double jeopardy. And it does not increase public safety.

      Civil commitment is indefensible. NARSOL seems always pull back from the correct position, in fear of . . . what? Really, we have nothing to lose by demanding what is truly just.

      • #44843 Reply

        Robin Vander Wall

        Thank you, Judith. But I disagree with your perception. NARSOL has not backed away from our strenuous opposition to the civil commitment of sex offenders. What the statement says at the end is that IF Virginia (and other states) is determined to do this terrible thing, it should at least adopt policies that ensure Due Process is respected on both substantive and procedural grounds. This, we state, would be a “major improvement.” And that language is not at war with our principled opposition to the use of civil commitment across the board.

    • #44841 Reply

      Wayne Bowers

      I totally agree with everything stated in the post challenging the Virginia effort to civilly commit Galen Baughman. I have known the Baughman family since he was first incarcerated. No doubt what is occurring now is a travesty. This is just one example, though, of the horrible practice of civil commitment in the United States where 20 states and federal have just facilities. Hear the stories of people or family/friends of any of these places and you receive a disturbing pattern of lack of consistent therapy and horrible treatment of the detainees. For three years National CURE has hosted a monthly conference call specific to civil commitment issues. Some detainees in some states can participate and join family and advocates in sharing information, giving support, and talking strategy of ways to challenge these practices. It is through these calls we are learning of the horrid conditions which hide behind the cover of most facilities being in some semblance of mental health agency and thus privacy covers the ability to learn much about them. More and more journalists are reporting on these conditions. Thank you NARSOL for emphasizing this terrible practice and restating your opposition to civil commitment. I urge all who are reading to learn more about these facilities and what happens to the residents there.

      Wayne Bowers, Director

      • #44846 Reply

        Mary Davye Devoy

        Wayne Bowers says what’s occurring to Galen /his family is “a travesty”, WOW!

        Galen has 2 different convictions for sex with minors and he openly doesn’t have any remorse for those two crimes.

        He avoided SVP civil commitment by Virginia the first time around and routinely bragged about beating it.

        He and his family always forget to mention his first sexual conviction (his parents when they came to my home in 2010 or his father’s bio for RSOL-VA board members) acting as if he only has the second conviction, living in denial so Galen continues to avoid responsibility.

        Then while under VADOC Probation he has contact with 16-year-old minor, so he’s been in the Alexandria jail (not a Virginia prison) since April of 2016.

        Now Virginia wants to consider him again for civil commitment as an SVP.

        Galen is not the poster boy for not having SVP civil commitment, he’s the poster boy for why we should have it. Galen doesn’t take responsibility for anything, he’s a manipulator and a recidivist who cannot stop himself from seeking out young boys.

        If anyone needs intense Sex Offender treatment, it’s Galen Baughman.

        NARSOL holding him up as a reason for reform is not only wrong it’s damaging to any serious registry or civil commitment reform efforts.

        On Twitter today someone asked NARSOL this:
        – Serious question, @NationalRSOL, and not meant as trolling: How would you propose to keep the public safe from individuals such as Mr. Baughman? Because you got me to view his story, and now I’m almost FOR civil commitment!

        Whoever monitors the NARSOL Twitter account replied with this:
        – Just as with anyone who commits any crime; when he has been convicted of the crime, bring about appropriate punishment, including prison time. When/if he is convicted of another crime, more and longer prison time.

        So, NARSOL is AOK w/ Galen committing a 4th offense, a 5th offense and so on. This means there’d be a 4th victim and a 5th victim and so on and with Galen’s history not adults, but juveniles.

        Sadly, this is EXACTLY why Legislators made mandatory minimums, sweeping everyone up.

        If NARSOL opposes ALL of these:
        1.Public Registries
        2. SVP commitment
        3. Mandatory Minimums
        4. Life w/out parole
        5. GPS monitoring
        6. Lifetime Probation
        Then what do we do with those who recidivate? Not everyone is a one time offender. Or just a two time offender, Galen’s on #3 as far as we know.

        This post and the blind support for Galen is the real travesty.

        The end does not justify the means.

        • #44851 Reply

          totally against public registry

          Dear Mary,

          No one should be committed to civil commitment facilities. No matter what one does, there is always alternatives to incarceration (specially for life). Every time one commits a crime, they get their punishment in a form of incarceration and our system is very punishment-happy as appose to rehabilitation-happy.

          At the end of the day, individuals who have committed a sexually related crime, are going to live in the community and how great it would be that after serving a rehabilitation time this person can live among us as a whole person who can contribute and be a successful part of society?

          You say…..”Then what do we do with those who recidivate? Not everyone is a one time offender. Or just a two time offender, Galen’s on #3 as far as we know.”

          That is why we already have laws (and too many of them if you ask me) on the books. People pay the ultimate price for recidivism. That goes for every crime not just sexually related ones.

        • #44852 Reply


          Mary Davye Devoy,

          Not sure what you read but here’s what I just read:

          “Baughman’s publicly available record reveals no history of violence. Violence is defined as, “The use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.”

          So then YOU said his “victim” was a 16 yr old. The VA age of consent is 18. Ok, fine. But where is this “violence” and why should this man be considered a ‘threat’ for sexual encounters with human beings who are legally old enough to drive cars? Sorry, I don’t buy into this idea that you’re mature enough to operate a motor vehicle which could KILL someone (see “vehicular manslaughter”) if you’re not careful, yet somehow the nature act of sex and the natural INDIVIDUAL attraction to an older person AFTER PUBERTY makes the “offender” the bad guy? Not buyin’ it.
          I don’t know the whole story of his offense with these quasi-young-adults, but seems to me that it was consensual. So, being consensual, it cannot also be “violent”. That’s an oxymoron. And don’t even try that “But they’re not old enough to consent” line with me. In 27 other states a 16 yr old CAN give consent. And when it’s a person – as i’ve said before – who can legally operate a motor vehicle, then IF the law says they’re not ALLOWED to consent (based on who’s imagination in the legislature) then so be it. But don’t say that said 16 yr old CANNOT KNOWINGLY GIVE consent, because they can and they do.

          If you don’t think a 16 yr old can give consent to a (very natural) sexual encounter with an older person, then they also cannot give consent with someone their own age. You cannot burn the candle at both ends. If they can’t consent, they can’t consent. But that can. Just like people under 21 CAN and DO get their hands on alcohol. Doesn’t get the underage in trouble does it? Nope! The first thing the cops want to know is “Where did you get this?” And then hold the provider responsible. Even if the provider was a liquor store who CARDED the individual but didn’t know it was a false ID or maybe the person’s older sibling’s ID.

          Amazing how SEX is the ONLY horrible thing that a teenager can ever have happen to them.

          Here’s something to toss around in your brain: If a 15 year old has sex with another 15 yr old and she gets pregnant and goes through the full pregnancy and pushes that baby out of her womb, please help me understand how – after all that – if she (still at age 15) decided to have a relationship with a 20 yr old who actually gave a crap about her and wanted to take care of her and her child, how is HE (the 20 yr old) committing a crime that makes her a victim AFTER she’s already been through child birth and ‘mother nature’ kicked in to mature her faster than what we ASSUME she would have matured. Please explain this logic to me. To the 20 yr old, this single teen mother would be considered a “victim” who “couldn’t possibly know what she was doing with someone older than her”. Funny, she seemed to know what she was doing with the penis of a 15 yr old boy who impregnated her. Now suddenly she’s an idiot to sex? Come on!

        • #44863 Reply


          It would seem the chief argument you rely on is your sense of moral outrage. That’s the ploy when there is no logical argument to substantiate your posture. Sorry, but 16 is more than old enough to know what he or she is doing. If they know what they’re doing with a peer or even someone slightly younger, don’t expect me or anyone else to buy the idea they turn into helpless innocent little babies just because the older partner is over the age of majority.

          Teens that age and younger can and do plan in devious ways to get fake IDs to buy tobacco and alcohol and to get into establishments (adult clubs) where minors are barred and they lie about their age without shame or remorse…until they get caught and held accountable. They lie about their age to have sex with an older adult. Does the teen ever pay for their complicity? NO!! Only the adult gets blamed. I say culpability is 50/50.

          I personally think any teen who lies about his or her age in order to have sex with an adult should be charged with as a sexually delinquent juvenile and be treated accordingly. They KNOW what they’re doing.

        • #44864 Reply


          The end doesn’t justify the means with civil commitment either, lady. We don’t throw out the constitution just because its safeguards become politically or socially inconvenient. When people think it’s ok to just throw the constitution aside when they fear or hate something, they’re the most dangerous of all.

    • #44845 Reply


      After reading this Static 99 risk assessment and scoring, I am appalled at how such a subjective and vague tool can still carry any weight at all. Who is the almighty god or genius that believes because the victim was male they are more apt to re-offend? This assessment looks like a grade schooler put it together, irrational, biased, and a joke. Needless to say I am literally sickened. I will be doing more research on civil commitment and would like to write letters and/or make calls to anyone that may listen to reason. Thanks to NARSOL and all its members who will help in this fight.

    • #44850 Reply

      totally against public registry

      I applaud NARSOL for pursuing this draconian tactic, which is in use in 20 states in our nation. What I don’t agree with is NARSOL suggesting to the attorney general to take these steps- 1, 2, and 3. There should be no civil commitment and suggesting your number 1, gives power to the state (predictions, future crimes, false science) to keep people who are innocent, continuously incarcerated. I don’t care what methods they use to determine your recidivism, no two people are alike and a blanket determination should not stand in the court of law.

      Civil commitment is unconstitutional and should be abolished just like the registry.

    • #44858 Reply


      Dane Cook, 45, Jokes About Age Difference Between Him and 19-Year-Old GF

      …perhaps we need to put this better “person than the rest” so called “celebrity” in one of these! What about Cosby, is he going to be in one too since he is deemed a PREDATOR? so many questions so little actions…

      • #44862 Reply


        Bill Cosby’s defense team is challenging the S.V.P. process and I hope they win across the board. This crap needs to end. It’s way past time it ended. Our judges are by far and large political activists on the bench and would rather be boiled alive than to drive the constitutional stake through the hearts of these laws across the board. I look on them with derision. Honorable? YEAH, RIGHT!!!

    • #44861 Reply


      The 8th Circuit ruling that overturned the lower court’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling against the MN S.O.P. was a travesty of justice. It was the height of judicial indifference and judicial activism. That proves that there is pretty much NO SUCH THING as an HONORABLE judge. I sneer at the term.

      How can any HONEST judge with A SINGLE OUNCE OF INTEGRITY say that FREEDOM ITSELF is only worth “rational basis” review. How can ANY HONEST JUDGE WITH AN OUNCE OF INTEGRITY AND CONSCIENCE keep going back to an old 1986 “Psychology Today” article that pulled the “frightening and high recidivism rate of 85%” out of thin air when scientific studies have been done that consistently PROVES BEYOND ANY LEGITIMATE DOUBT that the overall recidivism rate of sex offenders is nowhere near the “frightening and high” level of 85%? Is that not DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS?

      Every judge that rules on known debunked data should be civilly committed. They’re a chronic threat to the Constitution and to the Democratic Republic of the United States of America. Far too many times our “honorable” (yeah, freakin’ right!!! honorable my derriere!! ) judges willingly ignore truth and constitutional law to uphold this travesty.

    • #44874 Reply


      I like NARSOL’s endeavor to seek changes but also one has to understand oneself to seek that change.I believe a lot of politicians need to zip it once in a while. Should the sex offender people just toss their laptops in the washing machings today, or when real physical encounters happens is that when the dammage is done.

      Is it all a conspircy game thru a lot of this internet device? While we can all learn something from Galan’s ordeal one has to understand true justice, white washing, and black balling others doesn’t get it with me or anybody else. So who should we reach out today. I’m not in this to win but to prove.

      One has to remember Virginia is so different from northern state and other states and their laws are a bit testy, but peoples minsets are still the same for life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, and notice I didn’t say anything about justice. Is the old saying we are still fighting the Civil War or is it the war on crime.

      Honestly I never liked Virginia as it is a commenwealth state and a bit different from the West Virginia I came from. Now we are all wrapped up in the sex ordeal which is either man made or government made.
      Sure government will allow sex but at the same time they are using sex to catch a sex offender in this strange and bazzar way. I wonder who’sprincipal that is today or should we all go back to DUI classes.

      While their are thousands of things to discuss with American Politics. a fraction of American political class wishes to reignitate the Civil War in some ways mean’s and form. Are they ( the sex offender ) the scourge of American justice that changes frequently? Now I can’t say anything about Galan’s ordeal as I don’t keep up with that. And Mary I can’t say who’s the poster boy today. Maybe “Uncle Sam” is. I hope we don’t get into trouble for speeking out.

    • #44884 Reply

      David Kennerly

      I would like NARSOL to weigh-in on the subject of the legal use of the term “SEXUAL VIOLENCE.” The term “sexually violent predator” is being thrown around very casually in society and by the media today but in an especially pernicious way by our own government. Let’s please shed some light on how that term is used, and misused, especially for the purpose of throwing people like Galen Baughman into indefinite, usually lifetime, imprisonment in these sham “hospitals.”

      Many people on the Registry themselves are unaware of the sleight-of-hand being performed by the state (i.e. both federal and state governments) as a means to denigrate individuals who have no capacity for violence and have never demonstrated anything like a violent impulse nor used coercion or force in the commission of their crime. That cynical legerdemain by the professional victimologists is simply this: governments have now redefined the word “violent” in age-of-consent cases to mean that the younger party is below a particular arbitrary age which varies among the states but which is often set at fourteen (as here in California). Anyone whose victim is below that arbitrary age is to be seen for all legal purposes and by the public as “sexually violent.”

      Paul will remember me as the organizer for the first protest at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California many years ago and to which RSOL lent its support. Since then, nothing good has changed at that facility apart from a somewhat larger number of “hosprisoners” being released over time. The central conceit that keeps many of those hosprisoners locked-up in Coalinga (those who did not exercise the use of violence in their crimes, which is the VAST majority of its inhabitants) is that they are “violent sexual predators.”

      We need to tackle that issue if we are to make any headway against civil commitment incarceration.

      I feel for Galen and know him to be passive and non-violent. We did not always agree on some issues during his brief respite from incarceration but his loss from our community was felt by all, including me.

      Thanks too to Judith Levine for her words here and her continued support as a champion of our cause. Also my thanks to her friend Debbie Nathan who has done much to expand awareness of the power and extents of the greatest witchhunt in recorded history.

    • #44881 Reply


      Civil Commitment should be abolished because of the subjective nature of pseudo-science in the mix to deprive an individual of freedom with out legitimate due process.

    • #44890 Reply


      Mary, Wayne and Judith I liked all your responses but believe it or not I enjoyed donna’s response. Speaking out is one of the greatest assets that a person has and it all comes down to principals. I just wonder today if man is trying to override man, thats why I agree with Donna and her understanding of government acting or civilly bias and a bit childish in a bit of agrade schoolish nature.

      Either one has government principal, man-made principal or christian principal now which one a person wants to use thats up to their understanding. Is this getting to be like a murder she wrote or a who-done-it classification of sex offender justice or some mind warped Criminal Justice slave system.

      Total control of one’s person is overriding in itself after ones sentence or probation, so who’s the sex offender today in certain cases or situations. Talk about a force of one in these judgements.

    • #44918 Reply


      They need to see what a failure it is in Minnesota with ‘civil commitment’.

    • #44915 Reply

      Timothy D A Lawver

      That is the question. It is a false one.

      The most acute question is: Is CC different from incarceration? Either in motive or ends. Intent and effects. If so, how does it impact the condemned and society – peace in the union differently? Does the regimen really improve conditions, or does it exacerbate them?

      Clearly, Ms. Levine finds the regime abhorrent on many levels.

      My personal position is; like abortion, sometimes ya just gotta. Which in the moment strikes me as ironic considering my situation and I assume the lady has not been incarcerated herself for an offence. Ohh! The folks you meet in there may change her mind. At any rate, I do not mind that Robin’s condemns the condemning, If that makes sense. I won’t hold a grudge. I, like Robin believes there must be stringent conditions for such acts as reincarceration, it is the same arterial outcome for the interned individual, no matter what political correctness has deemed it.

      If I am not mistaken it was Kansas V Hendricks where the guy told officials he absolutely was going to attack again where SCOTUS upheld state’s regime. Given that how could they resist ma’am?

      For what it’s worth, I viewed a program not that long ago in which Justice Breyer when asked, “Is there a case where you’d decide differently?” Guess which case he would change? BINGO the Hendricks case 5 -4. Next the interviewer asked how he resolved this fact internally given the outcome? His answers came off a little too flippant and casual for my taste. But that is how it is with the elites is it not?

      Given the length of initial sentencing nowadays the question is somewhat muted.

      For my money, better to CC the guy with repeated offenses using guns or other weapons. Like others have stated how we define the term violence is paramount.

      Galen and Larry (Nasser) have this in common.
      All of their victims walked away. Given that fact I should think neither fits the bill.
      Galen proved that the first time around. As for Larry he ain’t getting out. The people of Michigan IMHO waste their resources on him. Hell I know 12&13 year olds who d wipe the mat with him. IF he were on the streets today who could be afraid of that guy???? Seriously!!!!! Does the lengthy sentence or threat of death penalty factually deter? Not even close.

      So the victimites have taken over the justice system. Due process, gone. Ex post prohibition, gone. Fair trial, gone. Double Jep, gone. Right to an conscientious attorney, gone. Defenders of the system will beg to differ on that score, but they have skin in the game. I do not.

      Let me take time to have a good thought for Miss Tibbits.

    • #44903 Reply

      Mary Davye Devoy

      Since quite a few people have locked on to Galen’s recent victim being 16 years old, when he was 31 years old as not a big deal.

      His criminal history is in a November 2011 Associated Press article so it already public info, here it is:

      – At age 14 Galen Baughman pleaded guilty for aggravated sexual battery for sexual contact with a 9-year-old. He also pleaded guilty to obscenity for sending another teenager a lewd photo.
      – In 2004 at age 19 Galen pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual battery and carnal knowledge with a 14-year-old

      Then Galen waited in Alexandria VA jail from the end of his prison sentence in November 2009 until the Spring of 2012 when he avoided being civilly committed as a Sexually Violent Predator at the VCBR by the Virginia Attorney General.

      In April 2016 at the age of 31 while under VADOC Probation supervision Galen was texting/communicating with a 16-year-old and was arrested for violating Probation. Since then he has been sitting in an Alexandria jail, not a prison and is now (August 2018) being considered for SVP civil commitment by the Virginia Attorney General.

      Galen has had 3 chances and has thrown them all away by reoffending.
      Galen needs intensive Sex Offender treatment and he needs to be separated from all minors.
      The options are life in prison or SVP civil commitment.

      • #44978 Reply


        Mary Davye Devoy (August 15, 2018 at 5:31 pm):

        I don’t have the time right now to learn what was done with this 16 year old. But unless this guy Galen attacked the person, the person is not a victim at all.

        I’m sorry but you people cannot say that it is okay for a 16 year old to operate a murder weapon on roads that I and my family drive on but is too immature to consent to $EX. That is like all the nonsense where the victim industry wants to call these 16 year olds “children” unless they do something bad. Then they magically become “adults”. It’s called being hypocrites and it’s not legitimate.

        I’m sorry but Nanny Big Government is a lying machine with very little credibility. They are not on the moral high road like they should be. If that were not the case, we might be able to give them some benefit of the doubt. But we can’t.

        This guy Galen was apparently held for several years past the end of his legal sentence. If that is the case, he already owes a LOT of people a LOT of retaliation. He needs to wage real war on them.

        And the guy has been imprisoned since April 2016 for texting with a 16 year old?! Wow. Then more harassment about civil commitment? At the same time a person could’ve been imprisoned for shooting someone with a gun and then been release without any discussion at all about the person being dangerous?! Wow. More retaliation is due. People who support this harassment deserve punishment. It’s unfortunate, but the idiotic “$EX offender” witch hunt has created and driven it.

      • #45152 Reply

        Timothy D.A. Lawver

        Mary D,

        Honestly I love the fact you are here posting. For me (not a member) the fact you are even here gives me hope for our nation. This IS the cutting edge. What I mean by that is this; the issues discussed \hashed out\ and expressed are ultra- important. Why? Because we must find a way to live together without destroying one another. So far we’re still a nation but many a nation has done and gone, history proves that to the Nth. We are a young nation just starting puberty at age 242 years. An so we suffer the same as young teens do, finding our identity and place in the world, discovering our sexuality etc. Liberty itself is at stake and on trial here everyday 24\7. If we’re are to be a nation who touts freedom as an intrinsic need of human, than this website MUST BE part of that rightful defense. As The Most Honorable Justice John Paul Stevens so eloquently stated, “It no liberty at stake; Who would complain?” Ok maybe a actually paraphrased him some but you get my point.

        Before I digress to far into romantic notions of individual freedom, back to Galen.
        Ok, state took a crack at him for CC, he beat it. How did he do so in your estimation? In your opinion who failed to do their job? I presume CC in his state is done so by jury; did the jury fail their peers, society, in rendering there decision?
        I’m an intuitive person and I’ve got the feeling his case is personal for you. I wonder if your emotional attachment has invaded reason. I mean we got school shooters on the regular now, murdering mother f#$%rs everywhere, gang violence galore, drug addiction, and more. It’s dissolving or devolving right before our eyes our society and few have any real idea to stop it. ARE YOU SURE, he’s the type of guy we should throw away the keys on? Larry Nasser is now locked up for 200 years; ma’am are you really AFRAID of that guy? In my honest estimation ONLY a coward could be afraid of Nasser. IMHO Michigan does its tax payer a disservice by its actions. Sure they feel good but at what cost? That is the problem with crying Wolf to often.

    • #44955 Reply


      Timothy I liked the anthology of to Commit or not to Commit. For me I would have to say “To be or not to be” a sex offender. Sure I admire anyone with guts to stand up about all this repulsive stuff. I don’t really like to speak about others in a negative way as everybody has their faults, even court systems.
      Now grant you their are some cases and situations and the flesh is weak or should we go back to the Charles Manson days or talk about sex cults, or talk about a boy named Galen, that wanted or wants to get his life back on the ground.
      Thats just like oneself, who can judge another man’s thoughts or intent. Sure we would all hate to be under the sex offender curse for the rest of our life whether we had close encounters or strange encounters. Civil comment is a bit tragic and who can asset another persons sin point blank with “cold calling assetment”. We could look at some of the clergy in PA today but I’m sure a lot wouldn’t want to go in that direction.

      • #45221 Reply

        Tim L


        Yes you suffer from the impacts of NAME CALLING.

        Name calling is propaganda tool. More often then not it’s used by bullies. We hear some squawk from the press band others in STOP THE BULLYING campaign.
        There message is good but they do not address the fact that the people are following their leadership. The people bully because that is what their leaders do! Thus it is no wonder why it’s a big problem.

    • #44962 Reply

      David Kennerly

      In the “Is It Me Or Is This Creepy & Wrong?” Department: I have spoken a number of times about, to my mind, the cynical and dishonest moves by government and the social entrepreneurs to distort the English language and to foist the term “sexual violence” upon an unsuspecting public to mischaracterize decidedly NON-violent individuals as “sexually violent” (and “predatory”) by redefining “violence” to mean having sexual contact with a minor (and such contact itself having been expansively defined over the years) who is below some arbitrary age (fourteen in California) and even in the complete absence of actual violence or coercion? Am I wrong to feel outrage at this redefinition of the term “violent” which was once commonly understood but which now requires intimate knowledge of statutory codes to comprehend and appreciate its revised meaning? Am I wrong for identifying this redefinition as a fundamentally dishonest ploy to further marginalize the “sex offender?” Am I wrong in my contention that we need to acknowledge, at least within our own community if not in our public message, that the term no longer reliably means what nearly anyone would expect it to mean? I really want to know and would be grateful to hear your views.

    • #45043 Reply


      David that is a $ 24 thousand question and I’m sure law enforcement have the answer. But in short anything that is offensive to others can be violent. Sure one can take violent to the limit. An example: No offense Mr. Trump but saying in nation TV grabing someone by the ying yang can be a form of violent or violent behavior or could one say a potty mouth is an extreme circumstance or how people treat others with come on threats as in some of these sex offender ordeals. One has a giver and a receiver via that internet device and when Government say I want you to talk dirty to me or come down. Who justify’s who’s law?

      Now I can’t say anymore or I will get in trouble by Sandy or Maestro but basically its man ploting to overthow man by these undercover tactics to cause him or her to stumble and trip over his carnal nature up when they are just as carna. Controling one’s sexual needs or activities are good but via an internet device is not the way to actually go about it, or should we all say put up our dukes. And believe it or not I can be wrong about everything.

    • #45170 Reply


      My new P.O. requires that before I am allowed to date anyone, (even first time) the potential date must go to visit my P.O. This essentially keeps me from finding a mate or wife. I am on probation for 20 years and very lonely. I guess a P.O. can impose any rule on me, but, it seems that such a rule would not be in the best interest of staying within the law or public safety.

      • #45195 Reply


        Truly sorry for your plight ! Your probate is unjust ! No matter !
        Please look me up on here if you need to talk ! Keep working to be the best man you can ! Even if you had a woman you probably would not want her in this situation ! Believe me ! It’s a Hell of a time and age to have relationships ! Greed and politics suffocate a good life in the U.S ! Talk later and find love, joy and peace in all things….. marriage, kids DO NOT CHANGE the core values, morals, standards and principles etc. Life is made of ….life is too short relax and enjoy ! This post is for others also !
        Thanks ! Take care and make a legacy any way you can !

      • #45291 Reply

        Tim L.

        They used to call that venue, “Corruption of the blood.” That way the ‘ deviance ‘ didn’t pass on. Meanwhile the royals were bonin one another. See Hemophilia.
        The state of SC at one time did some thing to folks. I’d may dig up the cases. I was in the news while back.They made an official apology eerrr.

    • #45363 Reply


      Civil commitment? Sandy I’ve wanted to commit myself a long time ago as life is tough enough at times but we all press on. Now I am glad as a lot of others that NARSOL is against civil commitment for those on the sex registry. Life time commitment is bad enough for even some marriages if one wants to think about it that way. One has to wonder about does the punishment fit the crime.

      Sure when we do wrong one can’t blame anyone but themself but when being enticed or provoked like some of this internet stuff works that is a bit different and actually there was no crime ,unless it was on the part of the operator of this whole ordeal. Sure everyone has a sexual nature. Are authorities taking advantage of this and covering there actions up with public safeth. Maybe we should talk about safety belt law’s or go to more extreme measures such as Civil commitment.

      Should the black man have been whipped in the old days by their masters or was that some cruel and unusual punishment or a form of ownership. Wow, I’m glad that Linclon freed the slaves. So where does it all end or is this sex offender thing some new way of ownership of one’s property Civil commitment can make slaves out of anyone or is sex the power ingredient that needs to be abolished by those in law enforcement that are no different from the next person. I wonder what government is ordained today to make that civil commitment on another.

    • #45589 Reply


      I have unfortunately been a witness to this tragedy called civil commitment in Massachusetts. I was even looked at by two QE”s psychologists that determine if you are a sexually dangerous person. This whole law is wrong and a sham. To lock someone up for up to the rest of their lives for something you “might” do in the future is unlawful and unconstitutional no matter how you slice it. I had a statuary rape charge over 20 years ago and yet it is still being used against me to put me in prison. I seen guys who were not dangerous at all getting cought up and committed in this evil scheme. Where’s their crystal ball to tell them what someone is going to do in the future? No one can predict what someone may do in the future so how can the state lock them up for something they think they might do! It’s crazy and predigest. To say those men are not in prison is a big fat lie! It’s just name changing so the courts can get away with it. It’s not a prison, it a hospital and they are not prisoners, they are patients. But they are locked up in cells, eat the same food and buy the same canteen. Treated the same as any other prisoners. The only they they get different is forced treatment groups that are evidence gathering sessions to try to keep these civilly committed men locked up. How can you get any benefits from doing treatment where you can’t be honest and open or it will be used against you, to keep you committed or charge you with a new crime. I’ve seen it happen to people.

Viewing 18 reply threads
Reply To: NARSOL condemns civil commitment practices
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">