# Imprisoning Sex Offenders Past Their Terms **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2003, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824 "2003-11-18T01:43:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/1 "2003-11-18T01:43:14Z")
It seems that prisoners held on charges of sex crimes in New Jersey are being deprived of due process and fair representation. > [@](#): > > only a handful have been released, and critics of the commitment process — psychiatrists, civil-liberties advocates and even some early supporters of the law — are concerned that it is merely an exercise rigged to keep sex offenders locked up for a lifetime. [NY Times link](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/17/nyregion/17COMM.html). > [@](#): > > New Jersey, more than most states, seals the commitment process from public view. It is one of three states that do not have juries at the hearings, which are closed to protect patients’ confidentiality. Patients’ names never enter any public record. The decisions of the two Superior Court judges who handle all the cases are sealed. > \ > It is hard to find anyone working in the system to speak about the process. All the state agencies involved declined requests for interviews with officials; the public defender’s office and the attorney general’s office answered some written questions. [The Sixth Amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html): “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and **public trial** , by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” > [@](#): > > Critics say the hearings deny offenders both the legal protections of a criminal prosecution and the sound medical grounding of a regular civil commitment case. They say the diagnoses — framed by lawmakers rather than doctors — are so vague they could apply to millions of people. By rummaging through a patient’s past and psyche, they say, the state can always find a reason to keep him confined. > > Several people who have worked in the system told of prosecutors’ shopping for psychiatric opinions and of exaggerated, even erroneous testimony and public defenders too overwhelmed to organize a proper defense. > \ > One psychiatrist who supplied them, Dr. Gerald Groves, said that sometimes, if he advised against committing someone, “the institution might go find another psychiatrist who would be willing to commit.” “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to…an impartial jury.” > [@](#): > > Patients often have no expert witnesses to dispute the state’s findings. Many said the public defender’s office had denied their requests for an independent evaluation, leaving them with no allies in court but a public defender who might have 40 other cases “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to…have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” > [@](#): > > Most of the testimony is based on the patient’s records, containing everything from juvenile charges to the notes of his therapists. Many of the evaluators’ reports were written years ago and borrowed from yet older evaluations. The reports are often ambiguous or sketchy, even indecipherable. > \ > The record of a patient’s crimes — usually called “the official version” — takes on an authority of its own, not just for its details, but also for the psychiatric interpretations it contains about those details. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to…be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” > [@](#): > > “I told them I’d wear a bracelet, a chip with a G.P.S. tracking device,” Mr. Deavers said in an interview before the hearing. “I told them I’d urinate in a jar weekly. I’m the one who put myself in this position, so in order to make them feel comfortable I’m willing to give up some of my own civil liberties.” > > But in the hearing, a new problem emerged: rushing through a doorway recently, he brushed up against a female guard. Sent to solitary confinement, he went on a hunger strike in protest and refused to speak to staff members. > > Mr. Deavers’s public defender, Joan Van Pelt, said the incident had been an accident and not sexually motivated, and introduced the results of a polygraph test that backed him up. But the state’s psychiatrist was skeptical. > > “That doesn’t mean he didn’t have those thoughts,” said the psychiatrist, Dr. Charles Gnassi. “Brushing past a woman, a man — it’s difficult, I would think, not to have some type of sexual thinking.” > > But it was Mr. Deavers’s reaction to the incident that most concerned the state’s next witness, Dr. Merrill Berger. “He didn’t get it,” Dr. Berger said of the guard’s complaint. “He was crushed that she would feel this way. This really speaks to his egocentric view of the world.” So there was no indication that it was intentional or sexual in nature and he passed the polygraph test, yet, because _they_ think that it’s only natural for him to have these thoughts, they’re refusing to release him. (BTW, consider the fact that an association with sex can _always_ be made in such an encounter about _anyone_. And he’s not even the one doing the associating.) He was treated unjustly; this would upset anyone. But because he actually stood up for himself and declared the charges false–and took a test to prove it–he’s being called egocentric. \*\*The United States Supreme Court cautioned in 1997 that a commitment _must have a psychiatric basis and cannot be a mere extension of punishment_, and it held last year, in upholding the Kansas law, that states must establish an offender’s “serious difficulty in controlling behavior” before committing him. \*\* I think this says it best: > [@](#): > > “This is so much like everything that was criticized in the Soviet Union,” said Margaret Smith, “There’s no way to contest any part of the official record without it being spun in a way that makes you look sicker.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/2 "2003-11-18T04:23:18Z")
Why do you keep quoting the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees? They apply to a criminal proceeding. This is a civil commitment. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/3 "2003-11-18T04:54:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > Why do you keep quoting the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees? They apply to a criminal proceeding. This is a civil commitment. Is it? Damn, I hadn’t thought of that. Looking over the definitions, I have to admit that it’s not applicable here. Sorry. Anyway, the debate still stands: Should the aforementioned practice continue or is it a merely a way to unjustifiably keep the unwanted in prison? [Here’s](http://www.cjjohns.com/c_law/civil_sexual.html) an article that offers several arguments against civil commitments, some of which I’ve already mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/4 "2003-11-18T11:50:23Z")
Yes, and the same article mentions _Kansas v. Hendricks_ which decided that > [@](#): > > …because the law was civil and not criminal it was not subject to the prohibitions against ex post facto laws, or the prohibition against double jeopardy… You appear to simply feel that the Supreme Court decided the issue wrongly: that their view of the Constitution is incorrect and yours is correct. Unfortunately, that’s no an argument you can win: they are the ones charged with deciding what the Constitution means. The fact is that right now, civil commitment laws generally do NOT violate ex post facto or double jeopardy guarantees. You may argue that, as a matter of sound public policy, civil commitment proceedings should not be held against convicted sex offenders merely as a result of their original offense, or you may argue that the Constitution SHOULD be read to prohibit them; you cannoy argue the Constitution DOES prohibit them, for it does not. I don’t agree with the right to privacy the Court found in _Roe_ and _Casey_. I argue it was a wrong decision, and as a matter of public policy should be this way. But I don’t contend that blanket prohibition of abortion is constitutional, as things now stand. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/5 "2003-11-18T13:29:44Z")
Anyone who thinks the supreme court to be infallable is merely very proud of their ignorance. The supreme court has reversed supreme court decisions before, including reversing what is and is not “constitutional”. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/6 "2003-11-18T13:44:24Z")
As **Bricker** has pointed out, these laws are constitutional. Maybe you should start another thread (or make another post in this one) about the morality of these laws. Or any of the other draconian laws put in place to punish the US’s favorite boogeyman–and until there’s a show called “Law & Order: Arab Terrorist Unit”, they most definately are the chosen whipping boys… ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/7 "2003-11-18T16:20:03Z")
Some responses to your link: > [@](#): > > First, the statutes represent a sort of double jeopardy. The inmate has been punished by going to prison and serving his sentence. Then after he has “paid his debt to society” he is confronted with another, additional sentence - confinement, possibly for life. He is punished twice for the same crime. This is what the law calls double jeopardy. > Second, these statutes violate the constitutional prohibition against the enforcement of ex post facto laws. The prohibition against ex post facto laws is intended to keep the state from enforcing a law retroactively. But, inmates who committed their crimes and were sentenced to prison before these laws were passed are still being subjected to them when they are ready for release. When the offenders committed the crimes, they did not know about this new punishment, so it is a punishment thought up and implemented after the fact. First, as **Bricker** pointed out, the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses do not apply, because these are civil commitments. Now, civil commitments have been used in this country for many years, they allow for the confinement of mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others. Which is what the Sexually Violent Persons Acts are attempting to do. You are not punishing the offenders a second time, you are committing them because they pose a danger to others. Now, if you wish to argue that people should never ever be committed based on potential acts, I’d suggest you open a new argument and include the rest of the civil commitments in the discussion also. > [@](#): > > Third, the law does not punish the inmate for something he has done, but for something he might do. The social sciences have not been very effective at predicting future behavior, and to punish someone for what they might do is contrary to all our legal heritage. There is an argument that it is difficult to determine the likelihood of future behavior, however, absolute certainty is not Constitutionally, nor in my mind, morally required before someone can be committed. Second, the SVP Act is not used in every case of every sex offenders. Here in Illinois, only a small percentage of convicted sexual offenders are even evaluated, and even less are determined to be a sexually violent person. In addition, a majority of jurisdictions use statistically based actuarial tables to determine the likelihood of reoffense, which have been determined to have upwards to about a 85% success rate. > [@](#): > > Fourth, the argument is that the sex offenders are being committed for treatment not for punishment. But why, if these offenders need treatment, are they not given it in prison. Why wait until a man is ready to be released to begin his treatment? Why delay treatment for 7 years for someone who needs it? Treatment in the Department of Corrections is not mandatory. As much as these sexual offenders need treatment, a vast majority of them refuse treatment. It is not like these offenders are seeking out treatment and being refused, they are not seeking treatment at all. Almost every study in this area has indicated that the likelihood of reoffense diminishes if the offender is treated. However, almost none of them get treatment on their own. > [@](#): > > Fifth, there is no treatment recognized as effective as a deterrent for repeat sex offenders, so what kind of treatment are they to receive after they are released from prison and committed to an institution? The fact of the matter is that these men will probably spend the rest of their lives institutionalized. The assertion that there is not treatment recognized as effective in diminishing the likelihood of reoffense amoung sexual offenders is wrong. In addition, in every case involving a sexually violent person, the State must show that there is a definite need for inpatient treatment as opposed to outpatient. And after receiving treatment, offenders are monitored closely after their release. There is definitely the underlying issue of whether or not someone should be detained based on future dangerousness. This is true not just for sexual offenders, but also for anybody civilly committed. However, Constitutionally, and morally, I think these laws are necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/8 "2003-11-18T16:34:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*Anyone who thinks the supreme court to be infallable is merely very proud of their ignorance. The supreme court has reversed supreme court decisions before, including reversing what is and is not “constitutional”. \*\* I assume this remark was not directed at me, since nothing I wrote could be construed to suggest that I believe the Supreme Court infallable – indeed, I gave examples of what I believe to be Supreme Court errors. What I did say, in contrast, is that the Supreme Court’s rulings are _definitive_ - that is, they are the highest authority in the land on the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution, and it is thus folly to suggest that a law is unconstitutional at present when the Supreme Court disagrees with you. They are right and you are worng. This doesn’t mean their decision is carved in granite, but until they overturn themselves, it’s useless to suggest an SC-affirmed law is unconstitutional. It ain’t. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/9 "2003-11-18T17:33:01Z")
**Bricker** : “They are right and you are wrong” – huh? I read this the same way **Dogface** did. I’m with the OP here: the Supreme Court has, in essence, carved a hellish hole in the Bill of Rights, and produced a mechanism by which anyone can be imprisoned, at any time, without trial or recourse. To say, “It’s constitutional because the SC says so” is not helpful at all. It’s a non-response. It’s like “Because daddy says so” to an intelligent child: insulting! Trinopus ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/10 "2003-11-18T17:48:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Trinopus \* > **I’m with the OP here: the Supreme Court has, in essence, carved a hellish hole in the Bill of Rights, and produced a mechanism by which anyone can be imprisoned, at any time, without trial or recourse.** Let me clean this sentence up for you a bit, so that it is factually correct: The Supreme Court has, in essence, _ **allowed the legislature** _ to carve a hellish hole in _ **my personal, and mistaken, interpretation of** _ the Bill of Rights, and _ **allowed the legislature to** _ produce a _ **system consistent with Due Process** _ by which _ **a convicted sexual offender** _ can be _ **detained until no longer a risk to reoffend** _, at any time _ **after a probably cause finding, and then a series of legal hearings where the offender’s rights are protected, and then only until he no longer presents a threat to reoffend** _, _ **WITH** _ a trial _ **AND further appeals and other** _ recourse. There. Much more accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/11 "2003-11-18T19:10:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > \*\*Let me clean this sentence up for you a bit, so that it is factually correct: > > The Supreme Court has, in essence, _ **allowed the legislature** _ to carve a hellish hole in _ **my personal, and mistaken, interpretation of** _ the Bill of Rights, and _ **allowed the legislature to** _ produce a _ **system consistent with Due Process** _ by which _ **a convicted sexual offender** _ can be _ **detained until no longer a risk to reoffend** _, at any time _ **after a probably cause finding, and then a series of legal hearings where the offender’s rights are protected, and then only until he no longer presents a threat to reoffend** _, _ **WITH** _ a trial _ **AND further appeals and other** _ recourse. > > There. Much more accurate. \*\* I agree with your argument that **Trinopus** doesn’t get the distinction between what _is_ constitutional and what they think _should be_ constitutional (or legal). However, I wonder if you’ve read the article that the OP referenced in its entirety? I take issue with a lot of the latter stuff you’ve added (the opinions you added to make it “factual”): [ul] [li]“No longer at a risk to re-offend” is a pretty sketchy standard: everyone is at a risk–however small–to be a sex offender. Unless you’re using a strong, well-defined standard you allow for a frighteningly arbitrary application of the law.[/li][li]“The offenders rights are protected” The “trials” the offenders are given and the rights they are accorded vary widely by state. Some states don’t allow jury trials, provide sketchy public defenders, don’t allow appeals, don’t disclose the identity of the judges involved, and rely heavily on the “patients” past behaviour. [/li][/ul] Again: I’m not saying it’s unconstitutional. I’m just saying it smells a bit like a kangaroo court and deserves intense scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/12 "2003-11-18T20:06:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Metacom \* > \*\*I agree with your argument that **Trinopus** doesn’t get the distinction between what _is_ constitutional and what they think _should be_ constitutional (or legal). > > However, I wonder if you’ve read the article that the OP referenced in its entirety?\*\* After registering, yes I did. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Metacom \* > **I take issue with a lot of the latter stuff you’ve added (the opinions you added to make it “factual”): [ul] > [li]“No longer at a risk to re-offend” is a pretty sketchy standard: everyone is at a risk–however small–to be a sex offender. Unless you’re using a strong, well-defined standard you allow for a frighteningly arbitrary application of the law.[/li][li]“The offenders rights are protected” The “trials” the offenders are given and the rights they are accorded vary widely by state. Some states don’t allow jury trials, provide sketchy public defenders, don’t allow appeals, don’t disclose the identity of the judges involved, and rely heavily on the “patients” past behaviour. [/li][/ul]** First, my use of the term, "no longer at a risk to re-offend was imprecise. From the article, the law in New Jersey sets the standard at “highly likely” to reoffend. While I suppose that all sexual offenders who have been convicted are at risk to reoffend, it still sets a standard that must be proven by the State. And, FWIW, the standard in Illinois is “substantial probability to reoffend.” Second, The trials done in New Jersey have been upheld under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Contrary to one of the assertions, in In re Civil Commitment of D.L. 797 A.2d 166 N.J.Super.A.D.,2002., the Court held that the law does provide the right to, not only appeal, but to be appointed an attorney to handle that appeal. While Illinois does allow for a jury trial (although a vast majority of offenders wish to waive that right), New Jersey does not, and was still held to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Metacom \* > \*\*Again: I’m not saying it’s unconstitutional. I’m just saying it smells a bit like a kangaroo court and deserves intense scrutiny. \*\* I agree that the act, and the hearings, should be held up to scrutiny, but in a majority of states, they have been, and have been found OK. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/13 "2003-11-18T20:31:05Z")
I warned you folks about this. If you are going to countenance the detainment and involuntary treatment of people on the basis of “mental illness” without a full-blown competency hearing (and without requiring a finding of true incompetence), you open the door to the incarceration of people without due process. As I have said all along, the mental health system’s authority to detain and treat is already severely misused as a mechanism for removing inconvenient people from public and private domains where they are disturbing people without charging them with a crime or demonstrating that they have done anything detention-worthy. If you do not wish to end up living in a social system in which any citizen can be detained on an open-ended basis and deprived of all liberties simply because some designated Expert on How You Should Think believes that there are undesirable things you _might_ do if they don’t, you’d better help with the resistance. In this case they are being uncharacteristically overt about the fact that diagnostic criteria aren’t of any significant importance, just the belief that the individual in question might do something bad if given the opportunity. As much as rape and child molestation give me the absolute creeps, I find this trend to be far far creepier. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/14 "2003-11-18T20:34:11Z")
Has, or has not, the Supreme Court ever made a mistake? Just checking. Trinopus ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/15 "2003-11-18T21:51:55Z")
**Trinopus** : What does “mistake” mean? They have ruled in ways that I disagree with, and created what I consider unsound public policy. They have issued decisions that reverse other decisions. But your question seems to suggest a belief that the Constitution is - barring amendment - immutable. That’s not so. The Constitution changes. In 1950, the Constitution did not require that warnings be given to people that were arrested, or that evidence seized by state police without a warrant be suppressed. In 1970, the Constitution required both those things, despite the fact that the relevant text in 1950 was identical and unamended in 1970. So which Court was mistaken? The 1950, pre-_Miranda_, pre-_Mapp_ Court? The 1964 pre-_Miranda_, post-_Mapp_ Court? Or the 1970 post-both-decisions Court? None, in my view. Each Court enunciated the then-current meaning of the Constitution. No one made a mistake. The Constitution just changed. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/16 "2003-11-18T22:20:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > You appear to simply feel that the Supreme Court decided the issue wrongly: that their view of the Constitution is incorrect and yours is correct. No, I understand that the Supreme Court (or rather each of its 9 judges) follows their own interpretation and that, though one can disagree with it, you can’t just call it wrong. However, I do think that arguments can be made for an overturning of that decision. (This is obviously constitutional now, but the 1997 decision could be overruled in the future.) > [@](#): > > Hamlet: > Almost every study in this area has indicated that the likelihood of reoffense diminishes if the offender is treated. According to the article (page 3): “But most forensic studies have found no link between denial or hostility to treatment and future crimes.” Also, as I’ve said before this debate is about whether this law is just and sensible. Constitutional arguments are certainly welcomed, but they are not the only acceptable arguments. Thanks, **Bricker** for correcting me on the relevance of the Sixth Amendment in this case, and everyone else who’s replied to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Gamaliel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b487fb/32.png) [@Gamaliel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gamaliel)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/17 "2003-11-18T22:21:31Z")
If they want to keep these cons locked up, why don’t they just jack up their sentences beforehand, instead of tacking on this chilling and open ended confinement? Doesn’t make any sense. I’d think it would be easy and politically popular enough to increase sentences. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/18 "2003-11-18T22:32:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sleeping \* > **According to the article (page 3): "But most forensic studies have found no link between denial or hostility to treatment and future crimes."** I’d be very interested in their information, because from everything I’ve read and heard, it is quite the opposite: > [@](#): > > ‘‘Treatment programs can contribute to community safety. We now have reliable evidence about those who attend and cooperate with treatment programs are less likely to reoffend than those who reject intervention.’’ > > [here](http://www.apa.org/releases/resid.html) Or > [@](#): > > Thus, a picture has begun to emerge in which treated sex offenders reoffend less than untreated sex offenders. > [here](http://66.165.94.98/stories/sexoffend.html) Or > [@](#): > > Several studies present optimistic conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment programs that are empirically based, offense-specific, and comprehensive. Research also demonstrates that sex offenders who fail to complete treatment programs are at increased risk for both sexual and general recidivism. > [here](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/GoodMorningAmerica/sexoffender_myths.html) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sleeping \* > \*\*Also, as I’ve said before this debate is about whether this law is just and sensible. Constitutional arguments are certainly welcomed, but they are not the only acceptable arguments. \*\*I believe a law that allows for the civil commitment of convicted sexual offenders who have a substantial probability to reoffend are just and sensible. Once their risk to reoffend drops below that standard, usually after treatment, I support their release into the public with monitoring of their activities. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/19 "2003-11-19T03:03:33Z")
> [@](#): > > I believe a law that allows for the civil commitment of convicted sexual offenders who have a substantial probability to reoffend are just and sensible. A substantial probability according to whom? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824/20 "2003-11-19T03:50:40Z")
Well, that is the painful moment, **Ahunter**. That by very uncertain means we must make a choice. An analogy might be usefully drawn to how we decide which criminals we kill, which we warehouse, and we which we cut loose. At this point, I am persuaded that sexual criminals, especially pedophiles, cannot be disuaded, by and large. Its not a matter of needing money, we can provide money. Its a matter of having what we will _not_ permit them to have. Even if they are amongst us, we must have assurances. As anxious as it makes my conscience, there are some people even a free people cannot allow total freedom. Perhaps, a free people can afford them even less. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imprisoning-sex-offenders-past-their-terms/213824.md?page=2)