|
Criminal
Injustice
System
|
|
A Truly Odious Ruling
|
by
Joe
Power
|
ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA,
“a
Catch-22,
coined by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch-22, is a
logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs
something that can only be acquired by not being in that very
situation; therefore, the acquisition of this thing becomes logically
impossible. Catch-22s are often spoken with regard to rules,
regulations, procedures, or situations in which one has knowledge of
being or becoming a victim but has no control over it occurring.”
In early November the New Jersey Supreme Court perpetrated its very own
Catch 22 when it ruled the state was within its rights to refuse a
prisoner sex offender treatment while in prison and then civilly commit
him because he had not had sex offender treatment.
The sex offender in this case -- referred to only by his initials
W.X.C. -- was accused of raping two women while burglarizing their
homes in 1992. He was arrested while sexually attacking a woman in a
nursing home and pled guilty in 1993 to two counts of aggravated sexual
assault, one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault and other
offenses including kidnapping and robbery. At sentencing, W.X.C. asked
to be sent to the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center, the state's
only prison specifically for sex offenders, to receive therapy.
However, the state's evaluation said he did not meet the criteria
because, as a sex offender, he was only repetitive, not compulsive
(both are required under the Sex Offender Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1 to -10).
After 12 years in prison, W.X.C. reached parole eligibility. In New
Jersey, under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA - enacted in
1998), sex offenders may be civilly committed at the end of their
prison sentences when the state determines that they are highly likely
to commit new sex crimes. The same psychologist who said W.X.C. was
ineligible for treatment at ADTC recommended that the state review his
case for possible civil commitment, because he “does not appear to have
had any appreciable sex-offender specific psychotherapy."
W.X.C was civilly committed in 2007. One doctor wrote that he had “not
moderated his risk through treatment. He had not had treatment for his
sexually inappropriate behavior.” W.X.C. argued in his appeal that the
state's denial of treatment during his prison sentence was being used
against him.
In a 5-2 decision, the state's highest court rejected his argument,
saying the laws governing placement within the prison system and those
governing civil commitment cannot be equated. Just because some
offenders do not meet the criteria for treatment at ADTC does not mean
they cannot be civilly committed, wrote Justice Helen Hoens in the
majority decision.
"The fatal flaw in defendant’s argument lies in its failure to
appreciate that the two statutes are designed to serve different
purposes and strive to achieve them through different regulatory
mechanisms," wrote Justice Hoens. "The operation of the SVPA is neither
punitive nor fundamentally unfair and we therefore reject defendant’s
arguments that it is unconstitutional as applied to him and other
offenders like him."
Hoens was joined in her decision by justices Stuart Rabner, Jaynee
LaVecchia, John Wallace and Roberto Rivera-Soto. Justices Barry Albin
and Virginia Long dissented. They criticized the state's handling of
his case (though they also said W.X.C. should not be released). They
questioned how the state could say W.X.C did not need sex offender
treatment while in prison, but then civilly commit him years later by
saying he needs treatment.
"Denying an inmate treatment for a mental abnormality or personality
disorder and then, when he is about to be released after serving his
sentence, justifying his civil commitment because of a lack of
treatment is not a rational public policy but a charade that violates
fundamental rights guaranteed under both the United States and New
Jersey Constitutions," Albin wrote. "Although generally the state may
not be obliged to provide sex offender specific therapy to those
imprisoned, the deprivation of treatment takes on constitutional
significance when it is used to civilly commit a person."
As I contemplate the majority decision in this case, I cannot help but
hear the echoes of what Major Sanderson says to Yossarian, the
protagonist of Heller's book: “You have no respect for excessive
authority or obsolete traditions. You're dangerous and depraved, and
you ought to be taken outside and shot!”
|
From NAMBLA
Updates,
Vol.
5, no. 4, Pg. 1, Dec. 2010
|
Copyright ©
NAMBLA, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
