The hidden truth that could end civil commitment

By Steve Yoder . . . In late 2006, a public defender went before a Napa County judge to argue for his client’s freedom. Rex McCurdy, a 49-year-old man, had been detained for seven years at Atascadero State Hospital under a 1995 California law authorizing “civil commitment” of people who have been convicted of sex offenses, a practice that keeps them confined long after they have completed their sentences.

In 1983, McCurdy had pleaded guilty to a rape, for which he served two years in state prison. In 1990, he was convicted of a burglary and served another six years. In 1998, McCurdy says he was brought in on a parole violation for living too close to a school, contrary to his conditions of release. Prosecutors used that violation and the two prior convictions to get McCurdy classified as a “sexually violent predator” (SVP), he says. That designation let them civilly commit him to Atascadero, much the way people with mental health issues can be locked up when they are deemed a threat to themselves or others.

Seven years after McCurdy was committed, his lawyer, Jim McEntee, was trying to persuade a judge that his client was a low risk to reoffend. If he failed, McCurdy would be confined at the hospital indefinitely. Fortunately, the lawyer had heard of evidence that might tip the scales: a study done at Atascadero itself that could help his client.

McEntee called as a witness Jesus Padilla, one of Atascadero’s psychologists. Padilla was four years into a study of ex-offenders classified as SVPs who had been released on technical grounds. Padilla had tracked them to find out their recidivism rates, which he presumed would be high.

What he discovered would undermine the basic premise of civilly committing people with sex crime records. In his sworn testimony before the judge and an October 10, 2006, memo, Padilla explained that of the 93 ex-offenders he and a colleague had tracked, just six had been rearrested for an alleged sexual crime after about five years in the community. That amounts to an astonishingly low rearrest rate of 6.5 percent. By comparison, a 2018 study by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 49 percent of all state prisoners were arrested again for the same type of offense within five years of their release. 

The recidivism rate that Padilla found for SVPs did not square with the 1995 law that created the program, which had called the people it targeted a “small but extremely dangerous [group of] sexually violent predators.” In short, the study called into question the legitimacy of the entire $270-million-a-year civil commitment program.

Shortly after his testimony, Padilla’s study was abruptly terminated. His records were confiscated, his hard copies were shredded, and he was forbidden to talk about his work. At first he pushed back and even tried to continue on his own. But as he explained in 2009, “It’s too hard to fight the system, you know.” In 2013, Padilla died of stomach cancer, his research unfinished. The whole incident might have been forgotten, if not for the work of law professors Tamara Rice Lave and Franklin Zimring, who excavated Padilla’s work in a 2018 American Criminal Law Review article and brought to light the ways in which the state tried to ensure that knowledge of it would die with him.

Read Steve’s complete piece here at reason.

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


  • This topic has 24 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 months ago by AvatarWC_TN.
Viewing 22 reply threads
  • Author
    • #68930 Reply

      The fact that the entire state of CA chain of command was complicit in covering up the damning evidence Dr. Padilla had uncovered regarding the very low recidivism rate for those registrants who had been released from the civil commitment program is so very scary. The state’s actions should be ample proof that the state is acting in bad faith by continuing to subject registrants to civil commitment. It shows a systemic hatred for the truth that these people are NOT as dangerous as they’ve been portrayed in court, in the media, and in the court of public opinion. This should be proof enough to kill the program outright. Not only should the data be reintroduced, but also the actions of the chain of command when they destroyed Dr. Padilla’s research documents. The state did NOT intend for the data that destroyed their false narrative of the dangerousness of these individuals to ever come to light. They had their little money-making scheme and they were keeping those society loathes off the streets in a way their captives could not fight or protect themselves against.

    • #68934 Reply

      It’s all a money making scheme. By making people think they should live in fear. Then cops are praised for arrest made in sexual predators DAs and Judges use that tough on crime save the child mess to be re elected. Money is made from having to report jobs created so that dangerous people are monitored. It’s all a scam.

    • #68967 Reply

      Understanding is good in many ways and yes understanding hidden truths are good also. While everything has its flaws even NARSOL one has to appreciate NARSOL and other groups in all this registry effort. This might sound a bit tacky but I wonder about the recidivism of picking ones nose or comparison of one or the other.

      While comparisons are good and so is numbers and percentages there is a point to everything but do some overlook or hid issues behind a barrel. Sure one can all talk about money schemes or even the sex offender being just another brick in the wall … or flaw if one wants to say that in this game of tag or labeling nonsense. One has to wonder if its all based on numbers or percentages?

      Sure we all can have morals or ethics or be the Jules Verne to the Voyage to the bottom of the sea or a Joan of Arc that was burned at the stake but where is the truth in a lot of this self control or controling factor or who is conceited today in this form/type of vain justice that sow’s or plants to the minds of another. While I’m sure we all would like to get to the nitty gritty of a lot or most of this registry issue it would seem that law enforcement and judges are and have been going a bit overboard in much of this ordeal.

      So who is deceiving oneself or controling in this fashion today. Sure percentages are good if one can account for truth in numbers but who is blind sighted today or should we all go back to the judge Roy Bean days and the code of the west. So who’s the horse thief today.

    • #68986 Reply
      H n H

      I wonder about the recidivism of picking ones nose or comparison of one or the other.

      Saddles, I seriously don’t understand anything in your posts.

    • #68995 Reply

      Now I’m learning something new about this comparison note of picking ones nose. I would guess some use puff’s or some use klenex to blow their nose, but the comparison is their. Ok so it losess some translation.
      All I am saying is a minister doesn’t Sow bad seed to cause one to stumble. They are to do good first and formost. As far as the recidivism it is a number and a lot of people have a hard time trying to justify rates of recidivism. One would believe thats about the size of this masquarde of a lot of this ordeal on the computer level or a lot of other levels. If i’m wrong I’ apologize.

      • #69001 Reply

        If you cannot stay on topic, I am going to start deleting your comments again. I will read only the first two sentences and if I can’t figure out what you are talking about by then or if it’s way off topic as usual, I am just going to delete it without reading further.

    • #69047 Reply

      The lawmakers and prosecutors could care less about the treatment of SOs. What matters to them, would be the treatment of the severely mentally ill (both the ones who committed crimes and the ones who haven’t, also the crimes that were committed cannot be SO crimes, especially not the ones involving minors). Only the treatment of drug and alcohol addicts matter as well. To lawmakers, prosecutors, and most other citizens.

      If anything, the lawmakers, prosecutors, and most other citizens are against the treatment of SOs, as that would have the SOs integrate into society and live and work among them. SOs are “bad for business,” when it comes to the good image that psychiatric hospitals, treatment centers, and other institutions, present to the public. They’re even “bad for business” among social circles. In a way, society has actually opened “doorways,” or opportunities for more SO crimes to take place!

      In the states that do not have the “SVP” civil committment laws, SOs are ran to the ground, for a whole lot less. Though I’m not one to point fingers and act righteous and I am speaking for what people would consider as being less (or at least in some cases of CP, where minors weren’t directly affected).

      I have said this before, that for certain evils to take place, certain doorways or opportunities must be opened after circumstances and certain people allow it. Certain lawmakers have opened doors, thus prosecutors were able to work and have men punished indefinitely in psyche hospitals.

      Men who charged with non-contact crimes in the states that don’t have the “SVP” committment laws in place, could barely ever get treatment. As well as the ones that have committed contact crimes.

      Unless it were forced treatment out in the community, during probation. The treatment in many cases, would not be given to an SO, as his case is ongoing, but after having dealt with the system (where death from infection, disease, suicide, homicide, and negligence by staff is widespread).

      There are a large number of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and mental health cases (minor cases like trespassing, breaking a window, hitting a kid too hard, or gun possession for example), where defendants get treatment out in the community as their case is pending.

      Some places have lesser, separate courts for those with mental health issues. Courts that are easier on defendants compared to the regular courts. Courts with programs that SOs could not be apart of, as their charges would be “incompatible.” Incompatible for psyche doctors, therapists, and others involved with the programs by the way.

      On top of that, the “SVP” civil committment laws only apply to the men who have committed contact crimes. So clearly there is a terrible game that is being played by lawmakers and prosecutors. They have pooled all SOs who charged with SO crimes involving women and minors together, for punishment in and out of the system, yet for treatment, they have differentiated them. An unfair treatment at that.

      Lawmakers who proposed the civil committment laws, have used the only cases that could allow such laws to pass, as the “SVP” label and connotation was needed to appeal to other lawmakers because of how shocking the violent SO cases are.

      The SVP label has the same sort of effect that the SO label does on people who hear it. But they couldn’t have the word apply to all SOs, which they already pool together in the 1st place. They also put emphasis on both the sexual and physical aspects of SVP cases, when most of the time they have a vendatta towards SO crimes involving minors and women, but especially minors, simply because of the sexual aspect of the crimes. The sexual aspect more than anything else.

      In many cases, lawmakers, prosecutors, and most citizens alike, have overly negative feelings towards SOs just because the crimes are “gross” to them. Not because of the severity or whether much, if not any damage had been done. Like the cases where men were arrested after being entrapped into talking with law enforcement who used a fake profile online. They are only moved by how gross the cases are, not because of “morality.” So all of a sudden a “SVP” is no different than a crazed killer. But only in a psyche hospital of course. Violent crimes, including murder, by themselves are not much of anything in American society, so why would they emphasize the violent aspect of SVP cases?

      The cases where women are r#ped, the cases of solicitation or sending of nudes to minors, and CP cases are just as serious, if not equal to the r#pe or m###station cases of minors, at least in the eyes of lawmakers (prosecutors and most other citizens too), yet for some reason they acted as if only a specific kind of SO crime was serious enough to garner forced treatment. Now aint that something?

      Prosecutors, by their own will and the will of the people they represent, work relentlessly to kill off men who were charged with contact and non-contact SO crimes involving minors, in states that don’t have the “SVP” civil committment laws all the time. No talk of regular treatment out in community or SO treatment out in the community by them whatsoever. They gotta use whatever is available, or at their disposal to destroy SOs. If that would be indefinite, involuntary civil committment in the states where lawmakers have opened the doors for them to do so, then so be it. In the states that don’t have the “SVP” civil committment laws, they would use treatment out in the community, to trap or give SOs a stumbling block. It is not to help SOs and in turn help the people whom they represent.

    • #69046 Reply


      The civil committment laws are just one of the many loopholes which lawmakers have provided prosecutors, to execute extra damage to SOs.

      Lawmakers have done this sort of thing in Florida, where if a person was charged with CP, a small amount of details pertaining to what was obtained (like pictures or videos) by law enforcement, would allow the prosecutor to “upgrade” a charge to a higher degree and with a different name.

      The details do not have much to do with anything, and the law is pretty much used to further tighten the noose around the neck of the SO in question. To make sure that the SO is in a lot more trouble than he (or she, but most likely a man would be in this situation) is already in. It is not a law, but rather an “amendment” or change to an existing law that has allowed this. A change that was made several years ago.

      Another example is Texas, where lawmakers have created laws to force SOs who had already dealt with the system and spent the amount of years in which they had to register, to be on the registry for a lifetime.

      This paragraph is from an article I read online about this.

      -The U.S. Constitution prohibits new laws that pile additional punishments onto old crimes. In the past, government lawyers have successfully sidestepped that by arguing that retroactively requiring sex offenders to register for decades-old crimes is not really a punishment. Instead, they contended, it is merely a regulation that promotes “public safety.”-

    • #69050 Reply

      I want to add that most of the mental health system is a farce and mostly involves pill-pushing, labeling people with “illnesses,” or “disorders” that can’t be proven to exist and in many cases are just labels for a person’s state of being, and lying to people and telling them what they want to hear or things to deceive them. A number of people involved with said system, mostly do things to make money, gain public interest and/or favor, maintain the public narrative, and to “keep up with the times.” That is not to say that psyche hospitals, treatment and rehab centers wouldn’t lose money over helping an SO. They certainly would.

      Pedophilia is listed in the DSM yet there is barely, if any treatment available at all for those who have the “disorder” (including teens and women) and haven’t committed SO crimes. Much less for those who have. Though there is a major difference between those who acted on their desires and those who haven’t.

      Chances are, the men who were charged with an SO crime involving minors, would encounter so-called “forensic psychologists,” during their case, who give them pretend “evaluations” in jail then commit perjury (lying under oath) against them, right before their eyes later on (even if their life hangs in the balance and despite an underlying brain condition and/or corruption from law enforcement).

      Chances are the men would also encounter mental health workers, like for example therapists, “mental health technicians,” nurses, or social workers who would team up against the men to shake up their case, most likely through perjury, where the workers had used the SOs’ charges against them and got them remanded (cuffed) in a courtroom. Or the mental health workers would use lies and/or false accusations to have the SOs arrested at some program out in the community.

      God forbid that some men out there find out these things for themselves…

    • #69052 Reply


      Were some of my replies too long and all over the place? Are they hard to read? Just want to make sure.

    • #69064 Reply

      Fred I am so glad you deleted my comment that does make one proud and HnH I am sure you all will win this with all of your all’s intimate wisdom but in the end who gets the victory or understands these sneaky ordeals that are just as bad as understand true wisdom or this recidivism of nipple chasing. Or is it man over beast. I’m sure anyone can understand that but NARSOL has the game plan. I’m out of here and thank you for your comment. And thank you H n H I’m sure green stamps are better than nothing at all.

    • #69067 Reply

      I don’t like deleting your comments. I just want you to stay on topic. Before you submit your comment, try reading it to yourself first and ask yourself if it makes sense and if it is about the issues we are facing. If it is confusing and not clearly about the sex offender registry, don’t submit it until you revise it. Maybe try leaving all of your metaphors out, because they don’t seem to be related to our cause. If you have other things not related to our issues that you want to discuss, there are millions of other websites you could go to for those types of comments. For example, checkout

    • #69074 Reply

      Ok Fred I give you the benefit of the doubt and you too HnH. I’m sure we all can bury the hatchet. Sure I have faults as I’m sure many do and this article written by this Yoder that talks about recidivism I don’t even understand it. in many ways.

      As I remember I sent an article to WOW and yes Sandy also posted it by a guy named Harvey Yoder which I have met the man. The article is “Are we all offenders” I am sure Sandy remembers that. As far as the recidivism rate do we all make promises we can’t keep or strive to jump into a tail spin if someone doesn’t agree on principals and facets of life. Sure we all learning how to cope with this sex registry which a bit hard for anyone to cope with. MAybe this whole ordeal shouldn’t have been rectified or radified to start with of is this whole issue a messy subject.

    • #69081 Reply

      I would argue that half of the problem regarding SO “treatment” is that most tend to equate all sex offenses as pedophilia without an understanding of what pedophilia actually is – a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to PREPUBESCENT children. Clinically speaking, a person is not a pedophile because he/she had sexual contact with a 15-year-old in a state where the age of consent is 16, nor is such contact an indication of pedophilia. Actual, competently diagnosed pedophiles have no sexual interest in post-pubescent children and are no more a threat to them than a doughnut.

      Many teenagers are sexually active and those that aren’t really, really want to be. Whether or not sexual contact is consensual based strictly on age is is simply absurd and goes against the laws of nature. That many teenagers tend to make unwise decisions doesn’t mean they’re incapable of making such decisions, as prosecutors often argue when arguing to try a minor as an adult for virtually any crime they may commit, sexual or otherwise.

      The other half of the SO “treatment” problem is the tendency to treat it like an addiction. Most programs are substance abuse programs, simply substituting sex and children for alcohol and drugs and presume that virtually everything one does and has ever done is in preparation for another sex crime, a completely absurd reasoning. Well over 90% of registrants are one time offenders, and recidivism statistics strongly indicate that going through the (in)justice system – particularly if a stint in prison is imposed – solves the problem, eliminating the need for “treatment.”

      I have often wondered (and will ask when I get my habeas case to court) how it is that the law presumes sanity when crimes are committed, the judge verifies sanity before trials and plea hearings, “treatment” is mandated in prison, and yet the person somehow becomes insane enough to warrant forced “treatment” upon release.

      I’m not saying that sexual contact between adults and post-pubescent, consenting minors shouldn’t be a crime and punished when it’s discovered. I’m only saying that the lifelong punishments (read: the registry and all its associated obligations and restrictions) inflicted on those adults under those circumstances is grossly disproportionate and excessive.

    • #69089 Reply
      Tim in WI

      Civil Commitment is plain necessary in some cases. Kansas V Hendricks makes the case foundational. BTW Justice Souter admitted he regrets that vote he made the most. He said clearly in a PBS interview. However Mr. Hendricks pushed the issue by stating certain truths if his release were to occur. When some men tell you they want to kill, they mean it. Our volunteer armed forces can be the same way, aggressive men with little doubt of their own volitions, differs in context notwithstanding plain human mindset. Mr. Yoder points to a law review made of the unfinished work of a Mr. Padilla
      and an alleged state cover-up of an inconclusive study. Some of those technicality releases are bound to be those not actually guilty in the first cause sex offense. Small sample sizes are always problematic too in study. It is a good bet the practice will continue to be overused. Incarceration is reasonable for those who do violence and we’ve reason to fear but many times the use is for those we are mad or angry at – like Mr. Nasser. Only true cowards could be afraid of him.

    • #69098 Reply


      I wrote a reply to you yesterday.

    • #69097 Reply


      Most people fail to realize that pedophilia is an attraction to minors who are around 11 and under. And that the condition also affects teens and women. And that there are teens, men, and women who would never commit SO crimes. And that a number of men, women, and teens who have abused minors, aren’t pedophiles. But hey, I did say more than once, that there was a blinding “ignorance” surrounding the negative feelings towards SOs.

      A man who had s@@ual relations with a 16 or 17 year old girl, would be seen as a “predatory” pedophile in a state where the age of consent is 18 but not in a state where the so-called “age of consent” is 16 or 17. How does that work?

      You made an excellent point in your 4th paragraph. Men who are charged with SO crimes are deemed sane by default, then punished after a plea deal or trial, as any other sane person who is charged with other crimes would be. They’re not deemed sane, but as “competent to stand” trial.

      Many “forensic psychologists,” will see to it, that an SO with a charge pertaining to minors, would be deemed “competent” so he could remain in jail, then get run over at trial later on, after “evaluating” them in jail. Regardless of whether he has a brain condition or not. Any defendant, charged with any crime is competent unless they were to be deemed “incompetent” by a judge after being evaluated by “forensic psychologists.”

      But that designation is different from someone being deemed “insane,” which could happen to both those who are labeled competent and those who are labeled incompetent but for the competent of course, the cases are rare when someome is deemed insane. I don’t remember much about that hellish system. Memory’s kinda fuzzy.

      But anyhow, like you said, an SO would be sane and receive a punishment that most sane people who are charged with felonies receive, then somehow, someway, they are deemed “insane,” then forced to stay at a psyche hospital. A lot of mentally ill murderers and/or arsonists are able to return to the community temporarily or permanently, by the way.

      The same punishment which the SO’s receive, before being forced into a psyche hospital later on, is a punishment that both by law and the mentality of the people an “insane,” person should not and could not be given.

      That punishment of course, is a certain place that starts with the letter p. A place that is the stuff of nightmares. By law, the “crimimally insane,” cannot receive punishment and stay at such a place, but rather they must receive treatment (not punishment) at a psyche hospital because of the extremely harsh environment of the former.

      People who have one or more serious charges like armed robbery or murder, but especially for SO crimes involving minors, are pretty much seen by prosecutors as “trying to use the system and save themselves” and in many cases they do not get deemed insane and go to a hospital.

      But in the states with the “SVP” civil committment laws, prosecutors use the law/system at their disposal to further punishment those whom they would see as sane and ineligible for treatment at a psyche hospital in any state, and prosecutors in any state, often make sure that alot of “SVP” SOs are killed off during their punishment at that other place I spoke of. Some of the men could be mentally ill. Not severally, but mentally ill nonethless. Or they could have some condition like austism, aspergers, social anxiety, mental slowness, etc.

      The harsh and horrific environment of pr@@@n could pave the way for the development of servere mental illness, or illnesses, for people who already have certain mental illnesses and brain conditions to begin with, and once they’re there, they’re stuck there.

      Lastly, I want to say let’s not forget the double-standards concerning women who have had se@@al relations with “consenting” (not lawfully) teens. From the media, the comments that are made by men under articles and videos online, and the outcomes of the cases of the women. Apparently prosecutors don’t take SO crimes as seriously as they pretend to, since even potential jury members don’t, if the perpetrator is an attractive female teacher and the victim a male student. Though I’m not one point fingers and I’m just making an example here.

    • #69104 Reply

      Actually this whole article becomes understandable when one understands the meaning. Sure I’m guilty, guilty of not reading what I write, being off color in many ways by projecting a view that is not common to the standard norm of the sex offender hype. A dead give away would say what kid wants one to come to their house in the middle of the night by some computer pretense. Sure recidivism can have its highs and low standard just like drugs or how high one wants to get or how drunk one wants to forget.

      When I got involved in my ordeal one person said to me forget about it and move on with your life but should we forget about the many unjust things or the recidivism of this unjust cause. I wonder if anyone learned anything from the movie ” the rainman”… yes Dustin Hoffman was good in that. One wonders about that movie drama or type of maybe a real life drama.

      Much of this sexual attraction or anything has to do with behavior and authorities are using that as a tactical weapon. Do we not use drugs as a weapond to ease one’s pain but all this sex offender stuff and much of it is uncalled for or who is testing who if they use drugs alcohol or are attracted to kids or not. Talk about adults acting like children in so many ways of authority or maybe someone died of a drug overdose. A friend of mind did that back in college in the 70’s.

      Now this sex ordeal comes along for many. Sure all things are good if used right or who is abusing a lot of things. If law says 16 than its 16 but when they masquarade that goes beyond of another calling.

    • #69158 Reply
      J. Schultz

      Where in the hell are the moderators? …k me.

    • #69268 Reply

      Once again, “safety and security” take precedence over what’s legally and morally right. A true civil commitment would impose fines or turn down licenses, certifications, etc and not punish with jail or prison.
      Such a BS system! Murderers can get a pass for being “insane,” but those with sex offenses are deemed sane enough to try and fry. And yet, they’re required to undergo sex offender treatment (SOT) after prison or during probation!
      Terminology for “sexually violent” is nonsense as well. Most people could fathom a kidnapping then rape as indeed sexually violent. But (at least in my state), CP possession is considered sexually violent, too, even if nothing more than downloading occurred.
      I think judges and politicians become too biased, even where freeing or giving one with an SO a reprieve is the right thing to do. Fear of “they MIGHT.” Thieves and drug dealers get lighter sentences, quicker promotions while in prison, less time on parole/post release, and yet, are all but guaranteed to commit a new theft or drug charge.
      Somehow property damage, financial losses, and risk of life or health are deemed no threat vs someone who stays at home to themself and MIGHT look at CP.

    • #69276 Reply

      Here’s My Take on the whole Civil Commitment thing: It’s just as most of the rest of you, have been saying all along. It’s just another tool for the State to use to keep killing any hope of Normalized Life beyond Incarceration and Parole or Probation Supervision. That’s all it is, plain and simple. There’s no ‘Mystery’ about it. The Media, AND Lawmakers have literally Teamed Up, to continually ensure that ‘Sensationalized News’ retains the focus On The S.O. Nothing else matters. Never has. Never will again. By the way; I was wrong about Wealth keeping One Out of Trouble when confronted with evidence of Past and ongoing Sex Crimes like Weinstein and Kelly. WHAT I DIDN’T FORGET HOWEVER; WAS THAT SUPER WEALTHY LAWMAKERS EVERYWHERE, ARE EXEMPT! Did any of the Media Guys from CBS or NBC get Civil Commitment? OF COURSE NOT! What about that? Hmmmm?
      When enough people get fed up with The Registry ruining their Families Lives, THEN, there’s going to be a Revolt, a Revolution so huge, that when it’s all said and done, we’ll be easily Invaded by just about any other country on the Planet! Because MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL DIE JUST FOR FIGHTING THE INJUSTICE THAT’S BEING CONTINUALLY PERPETRATED OVER AND AGAIN TODAY BY THE REGISTRY!!
      The United States Constitution IS DEAD PEOPLE! If it wasn’t, then there would be NO WAY ON THE PLANET THAT THIS BULL&$#% WOULD CONTINUE AS IT DOES TODAY!! Do you REALLY THINK, that there are So-Called Lawmakers who actually Care? OF COURSE NOT! Do you really think there are Media Giants and C.E.O.’s that Really Care about US? OF COURSE NOT! As long as they get the continual Ratings that keep their very Livelihoods, and Lifestyles afloat, THEY WILL NEVER STOP VILLIFYING US! The Courts WILL continue to Lock Up People Again and again and again and again and…until Time Itself Runs out and All Matter In The Universe is Consumed. You and I will be long dead by them of course, but The Practice will remain…or will it?
      I’ve said it before and I’ll continue saying it, because I see one of two things shaping up in the Very Near Future:
      All of this because, Some Knuckleheads in Media AND Legislative Bodies Of Offices Nationwide, wanted to keep the S.O. Status Quo…as long as THEY don’t have to suffer the same way!

    • #69293 Reply

      Marty I’m glad you mentioned the term “Sexually Violent”. I’ve even got a letter that I came across from my Public Attorney that thru in the towel. Yes the Public Attorney couldn’t go up against the DA and still save face for himself. He’s letter stated that I am not a a sexually vilent predator and that it was a sting operation. After they all met me they cooled their jets a bit and had a different view but law enforcement want to stand their ground and in the wrong ways many times. So where is American Government today?

      Sure with these treatment programs, mental illiness programs and now someone in government wants to come up with castration sounds a bit barbaric. One wonders who s popping pills behind the judges coat today or if the judge didn’t take his heart med’s before judging rightly.I’m sure the castration might be for some hard core person but I wonder who is fingering who in many or much of this saga of the sex offender ordeal and even the court systems with the argunment “my hands are tied”.

      So who’s going above who with this logical type of law and ordear thinking. I even mentioned we are all carnal by nature so is a judge or jury no different or who saves face with this inadequate form of justice of much of this sex offender ordeal. One has to ponder and search out the recidivism of being wrong or when one goes to court who’s side is right and who’s side is wrong in these studies or is there any one blueprint to use for this foundational law.

      Now I’ve burried the hatchet so lets all forgive and forget and press on to end a lot of this even these violation ordeals or should we all stay out after curfew. or who shows a lack of respect for others. I don’t even understand what I’m talking about sometimes guys.

    • #69791 Reply

      Here is my take on community-based sex offender treatment as structured by the state:

      1. Sex offender treatment isn’t as much about helping the individuals struggling with paraphilias as it is giving the state a set of trained eyes and ears to aid in their containment strategy. They are there in most instances to tip supervising officers to anything they see as risky or “red flag”.

      2. Sex offender treatment is designed to be an inquisitory investigation into the individual’s past. Why else would treatment providers not be satisfied with a general statement similar to “I have been attracted to preteen boys or girls or teenage boys and girls for x number of years. I have sexually abused X boys or X girls from this date to that date. 2 were children of family friends and 3 were relatives. The sexual abuse involved ___ or __.” Why do they want you to specify each individual victim, the time frame in which the individual abused them, the gender of each specific child, the victime’s age at the time of the abuse, and whether or not they were related? It seems to me that giving that much information on each child, even withholding the name, would allow a skilled investigator to identify the victims that are related to the individual. All they would have to do is interview the family members, find out which boy or girl was that age and which one(s) the abuser was in contact with during the time frame the individual said the abuse took place, and then interview those relatives who fit the description and uncover the identity of those anonymous related victims. It sounds a lot like an intricate fishing expedition.

      3. No matter how honest and transparent one is in treatment, we never get additional freedoms to do normal, everyday things like go to the movies or go to a bowling alley, etc. We are never deemed as no longer being a threat and removed from the registry. We are always presumed to be dying to pounce on the first child that comes along. Even my home state’s treatment guidelines, which are codified in law, presume that we are only compliant with treatment in order to minimize the treatment provider’s involvement in our lives; that the more compliant we are, the more closely we must be watched because WE MUST BE UP TO NO GOOD. WE MUST BE TRYING TO THROW THEM OFF OUR SCENT, AS IT WERE. We’re in a catch-22. If a person bucks treatment and refuses to comply; they are kicked out of treatment, which in many cases would trigger a violation of the terms of the individual’s post-confinement supervision which would get them thrown in jail. If we are open, honest and cooperative then that’s no good either because we’re up to no good. We’re just being master manipulators and setting up a future where we’d have the opportunity to re-offend. They see us as the hooked fish who doesn’t fight until it is reeled in close to the bank and then turns and runs and either spits out the hook or breaks the line and escapes at the last second.

      3. The semi-annual “maintenance” polygraphs are not just for treatment; they are another inquisitorial interrogation to verify compliance with the terms of supervision. Even though these polygraphs are mandated as part of “treatment”, they continue even after an individual has successfully completed treatment. The polygraphs go from being a treatment requirement to being a verification tool for the officer. Actually, that’s what they actually are the entire time; a verification tool to which sanctions (non-judicial punishment) is attached for failure (a return to G.P.S. monitoring, increased reporting requirements, increased home visits by the officer, loss of Internet privileges, denial of recreational travel permits, or a strict curfew).

      I want feedback from all those who read this comment. I want to know what you think about my viewpoint.

    • #70001 Reply

      The ruling could have been made in such a way that civil commitment only applies to those who make such brazen statements of intent to continue their criminal behavior unabated.

Viewing 22 reply threads
Reply To: The hidden truth that could end civil commitment
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="">