MR

Not sympathizing with these assholes, but one has to check the constitutionality of what this means.

A guy commits some crimes, serves a "court ordered" 15 year sentence. In reality, just a week before he's getting ready to walk out of prison, a board decides he is just too dangerous to be allowed out into the general public. Same board decides to commit him indefinitely to a mental institution. They guy got Gyped, plain and simple. The governing body lied to him when they sentenced him. What they should have told him is that he was being sentenced to the 15 years, then told him he would also be subjected to a civil commitment panel at the end of his sentence and could potentially be institutionalized for the rest of his natural life on earth.

Am I not seeing this thing the right way?

Here is Washington State's take on this:
http://www.doc.wa.gov/community/sexoffe ... itment.asp

steveo777 wrote:Not sympathizing with these assholes, but one has to check the constitutionality of what this means.

A guy commits some crimes, serves a "court ordered" 15 year sentence. In reality, just a week before he's getting ready to walk out of prison, a board decides he is just too dangerous to be allowed out into the general public. Same board decides to commit him indefinitely to a mental institution. They guy got Gyped, plain and simple. The governing body lied to him when they sentenced him. What they should have told him is that he was being sentenced to the 15 years, then told him he would also be subjected to a civil commitment panel at the end of his sentence and could potentially be institutionalized for the rest of his natural life on earth.

Am I not seeing this thing the right way?

Here is Washington State's take on this:
http://www.doc.wa.gov/community/sexoffe ... itment.asp

When it comes to sexual predators I have no problem with this; especially, if he is likely to reoffend. I think it depends to on the heinousness of the original offense. I don't know, it is a fine line.... At the very least he should be monitored for life.

The question is whether this board is qualified to render an opinion on whether or not he is a danger to society. He served his sentence and to my knowledge, he can't be held beyond that. However, someone can be remanded to a mental institution if he is found to be a danger to himself and/or others, I believe. This might also be dictated at the state level.

But, having served his sentence, he should have to be evaluated by an independent authority, not a body directly associated with the penal system in my opinion. Whether we think the sentence was too light is irrelevant to the law. We have to be a country that follows the rule of law he served his time. He shouldn't lose his freedom again without due process...

jaxmanjoe wrote:The question is whether this board is qualified to render an opinion on whether or not he is a danger to society. He served his sentence and to my knowledge, he can't be held beyond that. However, someone can be remanded to a mental institution if he is found to be a danger to himself and/or others, I believe. This might also be dictated at the state level.

But, having served his sentence, he should have to be evaluated by an independent authority, not a body directly associated with the penal system in my opinion. Whether we think the sentence was too light is irrelevant to the law. We have to be a country that follows the rule of law he served his time. He shouldn't lose his freedom again without due process...

Agreed!

Well we had a case in RI back in the late 80s/early 90s where a 15 year-old, Craig Price, murdered a neighborhood mother and her children. He was found guilty of the crime, and sentenced as the law would ALLOW as a juvenile....so, basically til age 21....there was public outrage, of course. The short of it is they(state) always found ways to keep him in past that...whether it be trumped up charges, or instigating him in other ways while incarcerated - in order to add to his crime....

The law was bogus, but he served what the law was.....there was no need to circumvent the sentence and make up stuff to remand him. They should have let him out, and let vigilante justice run it's course....

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/craig_price/index.html

That's happened before in Wisconsin. As far as I'm concerned lock 'em up and throw away the key! Keep those sick bastards off the street.

I personally believe that it is wrong to hold anyone past their sentence. They paid the debt that the judge and jury demanded in full. If you don't agree with the LENGTH of the sentences (and I don't in many cases), then we need to elect people that believe in stiffer punishments, and they need to rewrite the laws. Just my $.02.

I was just curious what everyone thought. We had the infamous south hill rapist, Kevin Coe, back in the 80's. I believe he was only convicted of 1 actual rape and was sentenced to 25 years, or something like that. He was suspected of committing dozens of rapes, but never proven. As his release date neared a jury assembled to consider whether to commit him indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of his life. The grounds: he would never admit that he was a sex offender or participate in any treatment program. To this date he maintains that he is innocent. The board voted to commit him and he's locked up at McNeil Island.

steveo777 wrote:I was just curious what everyone thought. We had the infamous south hill rapist, Kevin Coe, back in the 80's. I believe he was only convicted of 1 actual rape and was sentenced to 25 years, or something like that. He was suspected of committing dozens of rapes, but never proven. As his release date neared a jury assembled to consider whether to commit him indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of his life. The grounds: he would never admit that he was a sex offender or participate in any treatment program. To this date he maintains that he is innocent. The board voted to commit him and he's locked up at McNeil Island.

That's so odd. I've heard of denying parole because of not admitting your offenses, but extending they stay? Whoa...

steveo777 wrote:I was just curious what everyone thought. We had the infamous south hill rapist, Kevin Coe, back in the 80's. I believe he was only convicted of 1 actual rape and was sentenced to 25 years, or something like that. He was suspected of committing dozens of rapes, but never proven. As his release date neared a jury assembled to consider whether to commit him indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of his life. The grounds: he would never admit that he was a sex offender or participate in any treatment program. To this date he maintains that he is innocent. The board voted to commit him and he's locked up at McNeil Island.

I am sorry, but this guy is a piece of work. He should have gotten a life sentence instead of 25 years and there wasn't just one conviction. He was originally tried on 6 counts of first degree rape and CONVICTED of FOUR. It only after multiple appeals and many trials later that his convictions were reduced to one. There were MULTIPLE VICTIMs beyond the scope of his original trial.. 23 victims identified Coe as their attacker in crimes that occurred during the decade leading up to Coe’s 1981 arrest, but I am sure that is just a "coincidence."

This guy is a threat to humanity. I am glad a jury of his peers did the right thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Coe

An interview with two of his victims and the attacker himself.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24922815/

An interesting tidbit from the msnbc interview:

"Then at sentencing, a bombshell: A psychiatrist who had been hired by the defense testified that Coe had confessed to one of the rapes. Later Coe would recant. He said he concocted the story thinking he'd be sentenced to a treatment center instead of prison, where he felt his life might be in danger."

Yoda wrote:

jaxmanjoe wrote:The question is whether this board is qualified to render an opinion on whether or not he is a danger to society. He served his sentence and to my knowledge, he can't be held beyond that. However, someone can be remanded to a mental institution if he is found to be a danger to himself and/or others, I believe. This might also be dictated at the state level.

But, having served his sentence, he should have to be evaluated by an independent authority, not a body directly associated with the penal system in my opinion. Whether we think the sentence was too light is irrelevant to the law. We have to be a country that follows the rule of law he served his time. He shouldn't lose his freedom again without due process...

Agreed!

Actually it isn't a board. There is a court trial with jurors, lawyers the whole nine yards....

Peartree12249 wrote:That's happened before in Wisconsin. As far as I'm concerned lock 'em up and throw away the key! Keep those sick bastards off the street.

Amen!