Civil Commitment of Registered Sex Offenders
In New York, some persons who have committed sex offenses are considered by the state to be too dangerous to live the community. This is even after they’ve served the prison sentence for their offense. If so, these individuals may be held indefinitely in secure psychiatric institutions for civil commitment.
What is Civil Commitment?
Civil management is a legal process through which an individual is ordered by a court into treatment. In New York, civil management of registered sex offenders is codified in Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law. It took effect in 2007 as part of the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (“SOMTA”).
A “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” is a person who:
- committed one or more sex offenses,
- is suffering from a mental abnormality that, according to the state, pre-disposes him/her to commit sex offenses, and
- is unable to control his/her sexual offending behavior.
As such, according to the state, he/she is a danger to others if not confined. Therefore, these persons will be subject to civil commitment in a secure psychiatric facility. Such facilities in New York are operated by the NYS Office of Mental Health (“OMH”).
For other individuals, the law authorizes their placement in the community under strict and intensive supervision and treatment (“SIST”). Specifically, an individual requiring SIST is a person who:
- committed one or more sex offenses,
- is suffering from a mental abnormality that, according to the state, pre-disposes him/her to commit sex offenses, and
- is able to control his/her sexual offending behavior.
An individual on SIST does not require confinement. Instead, he/she will have an intensive outpatient treatment plan and will also report to a parole officer.
Anyone being supervised by the certain state organizations who committed qualifying offense can be referred for civil commitment/management. For example, qualifying offenses include rape, incest, and predatory sexual assault, among others.
How Does the Evaluation Process Work?
Cases are referred to OMH’s Risk Assessment and Record Review (RARR) unit. This unit looks at all the records in an individual’s case, including mental health records, court records, and more. The RARR unit will identify those who may be in need of civil commitment or management.
The Multidisciplinary Review (MDR) team completes an initial review of these cases. The MDR team may then refer the case to the Case Review Team (CRT) for a more comprehensive, in-depth evaluation. Next, CRT does an in-depth review of the causes and patterns of the individual’s behaviors. If the review indicates that civil management may be warranted, the CRT requests a psychiatric examination.
Based upon the psychiatric examination and a review of all the records, the CRT will determine if the case should be referred to the NYS Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) for civil commitment or management. Subsequently, the OAG will petition for civil management. At a court proceeding, a judge will make a finding on the individual’s mental abnormality and his/her dangerousness. Thereafter, the determination to either confine the individual or place him/her on SIST is made based upon a court-ordered SIST investigation and/or by testimony a psychiatric examiner at a dispositional hearing.
If a person on SIST seriously or repeatedly violates the conditions of the SIST order, that person is taken into custody and a new psychiatric evaluation is ordered. The exam will determine whether modifications are needed to the treatment plan, or whether the individual is in need of confinement. Additionally, a person in secure treatment or on SIST may petition every two years for modifications or termination of civil management.
How Many Individuals Are Subject to Civil Management?
In the most recent year reported (November 1, 2016, to October 31, 2017), 1,672 individuals were reviewed for possible civil management. After an initial review of each individual’s case, 91 (5.6%) progressed to CRT’s review. Of those individuals, 44 (2.7%) were recommended for civil management.
As of October 31, 2017, 320 individuals were confined in secure psychiatric facilities in NY pursuant to Article 10, with an additional 49 persons held awaiting adjudication. Courts have released 119 residents from civil commitment to SIST since April 2007. An additional 24 were released from confinement to their communities without SIST. The average length of stay for those who were released from confinement to SIST was nearly four years.
From April 2007 through October 31, 2017, 364 individuals have been placed on SIST (50 were placed on SIST in the most recent reporting period). On average, an individual spent approximately four years on SIST prior to discharge.
Issues With Civil Commitment Laws
The US Supreme Court addressed civil commitment and management laws in Kansas v. Hendricks. It ruled that statutes such as SOMTA don’t violate the Constitution’s prohibition against double jeopardy. Nor do they violate the ban on ex post-facto punishment. SOMTA and other similar laws are considered civil rather than criminal proceedings, and such constitutional protections do not apply.
Additionally, one state’s civil management program has come under scrutiny in recent years. Michigan’s Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”) confines more than 720 offenders in secure treatment facilities. A class action lawsuit by the ACLU argued the program was essentially a life sentence because almost no one gets released from the facility. While the constitutionality of the state’s program was upheld, it continues to call into question the legitimacy of these programs. Only a few dozen of the individuals have been released from the program in the 20+ years it has existed.
References:
- Mental Hygiene Law Article 10
- NYS Office of Mental Health, 2017 Annual Report on the Implementation of Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 (May 2018). Available at: https://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/forensic/bsoect/somta-annual-report.pdf (last accessed April 1, 2019).
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997).
- Chris Serres, “Appellate court affirms constitutionality of Minnesota’s sex-offender program,” Star Tribune (Jan. 4, 2017). Available at: http://www.startribune.com/appellate-court-affirms-constitutionality-of-minnesota-s-sex-offender-program/409518625/ (last accessed April 1, 2019).
Image – Universal Public Domain Dedication