The MSOP...

The MSOP...

Friday, November 16, 2012

Communal Custody Model

Here is the Model that would open beds for actual mental patients while still ensuring Public Safety.

The Recommendation has Public Safety and Detainee rights balanced. It all starts with "Stephanie's Law". The legislation, originally enacted by Kansas in 1994 in memory of a 19-year-old who was killed by a repeat offender, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997).

The Kansas statute, also known as the Sexually Violent Predator Act, mandates the civil commitment of any person who, due to an "abnormality" or "personality disorder," is "likely" to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence." The 5-4 decision upholding Stephanie's Law depends on a splash of legal gerrymandering and a high dose of therapeutic fiction.

In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court reversed the Kansas Supreme Court, which had invalidated Stephanie's Law on due process grounds. The state court decision itself was based on Supreme Court precedent holding that a person who has recovered his sanity can be confined to a mental hospital against his will only if he constitutes an imminent danger to himself or others.

The Kansas law attempts to sidestep this precedent by defining a person who has a "mental abnormality" or "personality disorder" as mentally ill and thus subject to involuntary confinement. However, psychiatrists have noted that such terms are not recognized in their field, and that the Kansas Legislature uses them tautologically.

In other words, the statute's definitions are simply employed to turn sex offenders into mental patients. The Kansas statute also wrongly assumes that mental hospitals can cure the hard-core sex offenders. Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall, who defended the law's constitutionality in the U.S. Supreme Court, argued, "It's not punishment; it's treatment. . . . We can teach these people how not to reoffend if they want to stop reoffending."

But many leading mental health experts have criticized the Hendricks decision, asserting that the treatment justification for Stephanie's Law is a sham. Herbert Sacks, president of the American Psychiatric Association, contends that the civil commitment of sexual predators to mental hospitals is "an abuse of the mental health care system," noting that "it saddles already under-funded public mental hospitals with a potential lifetime warehousing of people whom the state says do not have a mental illness, only a mental abnormality.'"

According to Howard Zonana, medical director of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, "the psychiatric profession has never regarded antisocial personality disorder as a mental disorder sufficient to qualify for civil commitment." He argues that the Supreme Court "ran roughshod over the issue of volition" by assuming the defendant was "totally out of control" because he offended several times. "That's such a distortion of both what psychiatry says about impulse disorders and what previous jurisprudence has said about volition," notes Zonana.

Indeed, several studies have shown that successful treatment of sex offenders is difficult even under the best of circumstances. Given the usual ineffectiveness of treatment, many repeat offenders face indeterminate confinement in mental hospitals in states with Stephanie's Laws. Such a sanction deprives a person of most of his privacy and autonomy and is extremely punitive, just short of life imprisonment without parole.

Let's Try Communal Custody

While society needs to be protected from high-risk child molesters, those offenders who have completed their prison sentences should be allowed to lead a normal life as much as possible. A better approach is communal custody. Under such an arrangement, sex offenders who have completed their prison terms but are still considered a high risk to children would be confined in special communities.

The offenders could lead near-normal lives, aside from the requirement that they remain in these guarded areas. They could hold jobs, host visitors, watch television, have unlimited phone privileges, own regular bank accounts, travel within the guarded community as they wished and participate in town meetings and elections. These special communities would be quite expansive; their terrain might include a beach, lake or ski area.

Confinement to these communities would be enforced by the use of electronic bracelets. No children would be permitted in these communities, but offenders could have their spouses move in with them. Residents of these communities who are not sex offenders would be free to come and go as they wish. In contrast to inmates in prisons and mental hospitals, residents in these communities would enjoy unfettered privacy.

There would be no peepholes allowing guards to examine them 24 hours a day and no random searches. Authorities could not read their mail or monitor phone calls. Sex offenders would be free to leave for good once it was determined that they were no longer a danger to children. For many offenders, that might occur late in life. Such communal confinement is not without at least indirect precedent. It is basically the way American society has treated (and still continues to treat) persons with contagious tuberculosis.

Communal custody is also much less costly than keeping sex offenders in prisons or mental hospitals. Indeed, there is no reason why offenders could not largely earn their own keep in these villages. The remaining costs would be borne by the state. While some critics have compared this proposal to leper colonies, the communal custody approach is better than any of the alternatives.

Housing offenders in these child-free communities would be preferable to sentencing them to life in prison, confining them involuntarily in state psychiatric hospitals or letting high-risk offenders loose among children. A variation could be Modeled for Adult Rapists, as well as all other sex offender etiologies/pathologies. Protect the victim pool at all costs. Reverse an upside-down Resource triangle.

Okay, I said it. Communal Custody for the banished sex offenders.

Call the town or village "Coventry". Banish the people the State fears will commit a crime in the future if that is what you are going to do as a State, but at least be honest about it.

A "Pre-Crime Program". I love that description of the MSOP that Dean Eric Janus provided the TF.

That is the absolute best option of bad options. Set up governmental infrastructure in Coventry, ala police, fire, medical, hospitals, etc. and let these State-Labeled Probably Sexually Dangerous (at some point throughout their lifetime: MN's Ridiculous, Illegal and Unconstitutional "Risk" Model) Predators all live together in the same town, elect their officials, work and contribute to their banished society, all on the cheap for the State TAXPAYERS because the tired illusion of "therapy" and "mental health", and "hospital", and "Treatment" will be at long last finally dispensed with.

It is difficult to even put a monetary price tag on all the staggering costs associated with this illusion that is being confronted in Federal Court after 20 years of a State & Federal Judicial Nullification on this Class of MN Citizen: Sex Offender. Not just actual, real sex offenders, but any/all STATE-LABELED Sex Offender, which is a convenient and very powerful State Control Tool when, BY STATUTE, there is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND NEEDED BEYOND FALSE WORDS TO CAUSE A WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THIS HYSTERICAL CLIMATE in the aftermath of the State Cleansing of the Sex Offender Ghetto/Post-Dru Sjodin Witch Hunt. No man is safe in MN when he can be falsely labeled an SO, and sent off to MSOP. Trust me.

Sleep well guys. I've lived it. Look at the statements from Jennifer Anderson and ARM after I fully post them on my other Blog:


I can prove to the WORLD that in MN, you can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of raping a woman you never even met (not the facts in my case re conviction), be referred for SDP/SPP civil commitment by the "Risk Assessment" Unit in the DOC that William Donnay runs (the "experts"who let Rodriguez walk, and then followed the Regime's Orders to Abuse DOC Processes to Illegally and Unconstitutionally "Commit all the sex offenders", as one ex or current-DOC Psychologist UNNAMED told me just today) if you score even Low Risk on all sex offender risk tools, sent to MSOP on the basis of that single wrongful sex conviction, and abused and neglected until you die.

Yes, this is serious and I am attempting to sound the ALARM to ALL MN men while there is still time, and please understand that historically when a State/Government targets the most villified members of society that it is a very slippery slope and whoever the State decides is an undesirable: Gypsys, Sex offenders, Gang Members, Gays, Lesbians, Race, Religion...where does it end?

I'll tell you where this can end and has ended if "we" are not mindful while dealing with "them":

Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."

Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who opposed the Nazi regime. He spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Germany, 1937.
Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who opposed the Nazi regime. He spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Germany, 1937.
— Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz
Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
The quotation stems from Niemöller's lectures during the early postwar period. Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings. Much controversy surrounds the content of the poem as it has been printed in varying forms, referring to diverse groups such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Trade Unionists, or Communists depending upon the version. Nonetheless his point was that Germans--in particular, he believed, the leaders of the Protestant churches--had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.
Only in 1963, in a West German television interview, did Niemöller acknowledge and make a statement of regret about his own antisemitism (see Gerlach, 2000, p. 47). Nonetheless, Martin Niemöller was one of the earliest Germans to talk publicly about broader complicity in the Holocaust and guilt for what had happened to the Jews. In his book Über die deutsche Schuld, Not und Hoffnung (published in English as Of Guilt and Hope)--which appeared in January 1946--Niemöller wrote: "Thus, whenever I chance to meet a Jew known to me before, then, as a Christian, I cannot but tell him: 'Dear Friend, I stand in front of you, but we can not get together, for there is guilt between us. I have sinned and my people has sinned against thy people and against thyself.'"
Further Reading
James Bentley, Martin Niemöller: 1892-1984 (NY: Macmillan Free Press,1984)
Victoria Barnett, For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest under Hitler (NY: Oxford University Press, 1992)
Wolfgang Gerlach, And the Witnesses were Silent: The Confessing Church and the Jews (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2000)

Copyright © United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC

Encyclopedia Last Updated: May 11, 2012

Here is a link to my Public Testimony I sent the Task Force with request they publicly post:

No comments:

Post a Comment