Sexual Predators
Author - Pam Ramsey (copyright 1993)

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Topic: Post-sentence registration and post-sentence incarceration of sexual predators.

Problem: Sexual predators are being released on parole and then are committing more violent sex crimes.

Proposed Solution: Inform the public of the release of sexual predators and require mandatory registration of the sexual predator's location with police. Require extended or permanent prison/hospital stays for those found to be sexual predators. What conditions or attitudes existed to push the authorities to create such a law?

• The desire to better society
• The desire for public safety
• Public outrage
• Extreme recidivism
• The belief that rehabilitation, as has been done in the past, does not work
• Victim's Rights
• Community members desire to protect their own
• Preventive Detention Advocates

EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

The first thing I want to do in this paper is list some sobering statistics concerning sexual assaults. These statistics are usually well-known but the criminal justice system, in my research borne opinion, is still placing this type of crime on a back-burner.

One in four girls and one in 10 boys will be a victim of sexual assault of some kind before they reach the age of 18. (Beyer, 1993)

The California Office of Criminal Justice Planning "...reports of close to 400 victims during the lifetime of the typical male child molester." (Eisenman, 1991)

A 1992 study of 767 rapists and child molesters in Minnesota found those who completed psychiatric treatment were arrested more often for new sex crimes than those who had not been treated at all. A Canadian survey that tracked released child molesters for 20 years revealed a 43% recidivism rate regardless of the therapy. (Vachss, 1993)

LITERATURE REVIEW

WASHINGTON STATE

In 1988, a Washington State citizen, Ida Ballasiotes, started the grass-roots campaign for a new preventive law to keep sexual predators in jail indefinitely. The community action group known as "Friends of Diane" started after Ida Ballasiotes' daughter, Diane, was raped and murdered by Gene Raymond Kane. Kane had been on work-release after serving 13 years for two previous sexual assaults. Kane raped and murdered Diane on September 26, 1988, only two months after he joined the work-release center. Authorities explained to the grief-stricken mother that there was nothing they could have done. Kane had served his entire sentence and they couldn't hold him in jail for what he might do, only for what he had done. The prison psychologist that interviewed Kane before his release said that Kane's chance to reintegrate appropriately into society was "quite poor." (Siegel, 1990, pp. A1) Even so, he was released and the only thing the authorities could do to assuage their guilt was hide behind the law. They had his criminal record staring at them and statistically they could predict that he would re-offend. Ida was outraged and her fury led the fight to change the law. Someone had to be responsible.

As we all know one incident will not be enough to change the world or the law. Soon after the "Friends of Diane" started organizing petitions and rallies two more violent sexual assaults happened and both had circumstances very similar to Diane's case.

One was the case of Gary Minnix, a severely mentally retarded man who had been charged with four vicious knife-related rapes in 1986. Seattle police linked him to 22 similar cases over time. He was declared incompetent to stand trial so he was never convicted of a crime. He was a patient at a State Hospital but because he was "gravely disabled" and not a convicted criminal he was allowed weekend furloughs. He was on his sixth furlough when he assaulted, raped and slashed a 23-year-old woman in her apartment in December of 1988.

The second case was in May 1989. Earl K. Shriner accosted a 7-year-old boy, raped him, choked him nearly to death and then sexually mutilated the boy. Shriner's criminal record was lengthy and violent. He had been assaulting young children for 24 years. He was diagnosed as mentally retarded and had been in and out of prison for nearly his entire life. When it came time for his release in May of 1987, corrections officials tried everything under the current law to keep Shriner confined. They knew he was dangerous. They knew he would re-offend. A psychiatric evaluation then said Shriner "has unusual sexually sadistic fantasies and plans to carry them out." (Siegel, 1990, pp. A30) At that time, however, the state could not commit someone involuntarily to a State Hospital unless "they suffered from a distinct, recognized mental disorder making them immediately and substantially dangerous to themselves or others." (Siegel, 1990, pp. A30) Legally the authorities hands were tied so Shriner was released back into the public.

Those three events were more than enough to mobilize the citizens of Washington State. A new grass-roots citizens group called "The Tennis Shoe Brigade" joined the fight with "Friends of Diane." They wanted the sexual predators off the streets. They pleaded - don't let assaults like this happen, and don't ever let people like this out once they've been caught the first time. The overlying demand was do it and do it now!

On February 28, 1990, Governor Gardner (Washington State Democrat) signed the omnibus package that would become Washington State's Code Chapter 71.09 - Sexually Violent Predators. The following list of definitions are key to understanding this law.

(1) "Sexually violent predator" means any person who has been convicted of or charged with a crime of sexual violence and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence. (RCW 71.09.020.)

(2) "Mental abnormality" means a congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to the commission of criminal sexual acts in a degree constituting such person a menace to the health and safety of others. (RCW 71.09.020.)

(3) "Predatory" means acts directed towards strangers or individuals with whom a relationship has been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization. (RCW 71.09.020.)

Put simply this law will enable the criminal justice system of the state of Washington to keep sexual predator offenders in indefinite preventive detention. The premise is that if released into the community as a free person they will then commit further criminal acts of sexual violence. These sexual predator offenders do not need to be classified as mentally ill nor do they need to have a criminal charge pending against them. The state is allowed to predict the future dangerousness of an individual previously convicted of a violent sexual crime. The following quote is the exact section of the law that determines the regulations involved in filing a petition to allege that an individual should be considered a sexual predator. The petition may be filed by the attorney general or prosecuting attorney.

When it appears that: (1) The sentence of a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense is about to expire, or has expired on, before, or after July 1, 1990; (2) the term of confinement of a person found to have committed a sexually violent offense as a juvenile is about to expire, or has expired on, before, or after July 1, 1990; (3) a person who has been charged with a sexually violent offense and who has been determined to be incompetent to stand trial is about to be released, or has been released on, before, or after July 1, 1990, pursuant to RCW 10.77.090(3); or (4) a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of a sexually violent offense is about to be released, or has been released on, before, or after July 1, 1990, pursuant to RCW 10.77.020(3); and it appears that the person may be a sexually violent predator... (RCW 71.09.030)

After the petition is filed, a judge then determines whether probable cause exists to consider the person, named in the petition, a sexual predator. If so considered, the person then is taken into custody and transferred to the special commitment facility. When at the special commitment facility the person is evaluated by a psychiatric professional to determine whether indeed they qualify as a sexual predator. The person is then transferred back to the court system. Within 45 days of filing the petition, the court must conduct a trial. The person may request a jury trial otherwise it will be before the court alone. The court must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a dangerous sexually violent predator.

The state has built a separate 36 bed (27 beds for regular sexually violent predators and nine beds set aside for persons with developmental disabilities) maximum security facility (called the special commitment facility) at the state prison. The sexual predators will not be in contact with the regular inmates at all. They will not have to wear regular inmate clothing. They will have 10 by 15 foot personal quarters that are identical to the regular inmates quarters. The sexual predator inmates will not be allowed to participate in any work-release programs. Also they will not be allowed any privileges that would take them outside the prison walls.

The special commitment facility utilizes a variety of intensive treatment programs and therapeutic programs. The sexual predators will be required to attend both group and individual therapy sessions with staff psychologists and social workers. These therapy sessions will have a cognitive-behavioral focus. They will try to restructure the cognitive patterns of the sexual predators. There will be specialized treatment groups that will deal with anger management, substance abuse and social skills. They will be treated and hopefully deterred from achieving sexual arousal from deviant fantasies. Special programs are available for those sexual predators that have developmental disabilities.

Every sexual predator within the special commitment facility shall have an annual examination of their mental condition. The state must again prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person remains dangerous. Besides the yearly examination, at any other time, a sexual predator may petition the prison officials and the court for release. Yet, unless the secretary of the department of social and health services has authorized the person to petition the court for release, no hearing on the petition is guaranteed. The court can determine that the sexual predator's petition is frivolous. Also, the sexual predator themselves may waive their right to petition for release.

In Washington State, so far nearly 2,000 sex offenders have been evaluated for sexual predator status. The law lists acts of sexual violence to include:

first and second-degree rape, indecent liberties and child molestation. Lesser offenses such as second-degree assault and even residential burglary could also be considered to meet the definition if they are determined to have been sexually motivated. (Seigel, 1990)

Why have states started on this campaign of sexual predator laws? One reason is the 47% increase (in the past five years) in the convictions of sex offenders. Another is the growing number of violent sex crimes against children.

Diane Vaughan, Tacoma, Washington resident, mother of a son, and sexual abuse victims advocate has a good point to make.

People like him try to blend right back into the system and hide themselves in this cloak of normalcy so they can start molesting again. ...This is like a weather report that helps you when big storms come and you try to shelter your children. Notification is the only tool we have to work with as victims. (The New York Times, February, 1993)

The public is no longer sheltered from heinous crimes. People want to know about crime and especially parents want to learn about crimes that might endanger their children.

Although our country is founded on the ideals that people are innocent until proven guilty and that all people have a right to privacy; the level and the ferocity of sex crimes has become to much for our society to handle. It's now more politically correct to believe in Victims' Rights than the rights of the offenders.

As of December, 1992, 22 states had laws requiring the registration of sex criminals. They are Washington, Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. Registration requires the offenders to give their addresses and various other information to the local police in the community where they plan to live. This registration must be done immediately upon their release from prison. Different states have different ways in which they obtain this information and what they can do with the information once they have it. Washington, Maine and Louisiana allow the police to make the information publicly available.

Many states are now allowing some sex offenders to be declared habitual and thus be known as sexual predators. If so declared, then those offenders may have stricter sentences opposed on them or perhaps be confined indefinitely.

Washington and Louisiana currently have the strictest registration laws. Many other states (Illinois for one) use commitment to a prison treatment facility as an option to criminal conviction and incarceration, rather than in addition to it as Washington State does.

Louisiana requires the offender to personally notify his neighbors within a three-block (if he lives in an urban area) or one-mile (if he lives in a rural area) radius of his name, address and criminal record. One aspect of the Louisiana law brings the most controversy. It allows a judge to make a released offender wear special clothing that marks him as a sex offender. The judge also may require signs to be posted on the offender's house and/or bumper stickers placed on their cars.

Indiana is currently trying to enact Zachary's law. Zachary's law, named after a slain 10-year-old boy, would make it mandatory to notify the members of a community when a child molester moves into the area.

20-year-old Chris Stevens, Zachary Snider's murderer (he confessed after arrest), had previously molested a child and he did a mere 87 days in jail. Upon release he moved to his father's house in Zachary's neighborhood. Nobody in the neighborhood had any idea that they should warn their children to avoid Chris Stevens.

Ms. Becky Galvin, a neighbor of the Snider's, summed up the feelings of the community with the following quote.

No more of protecting the convicted felon. They have no rights. They should have lost their rights when they were convicted of this hideous crime that we are going to protect our children from, and we're not going to stop until we do get it passed. We won't stop. They can knock us down, and we're going to get right back up. (Front Page, 1993)

Opponents to these types of laws say that the laws violate offenders' constitutional rights. They claim that preventive detention, even though there is treatment involved, is unconstitutional. They call the one part of Louisiana's law "the scarlet letter bill."

Another fear the opponents have is vigilantism. That fear is most felt in the states that allow the police to tell a community all the information they have on released sex offenders. Will people take it upon themselves to rid their community of a threat by killing or somehow driving away the sex offenders? The truth is they might. They did in the case of Joseph Gallardo (whose home was burned down).

Many opponents of the sexual predator laws base their opposition on the fact that they believe that, like other criminals, sex offenders deserve the right to rehabilitate themselves. There are three main types of treatment currently directed toward rehabilitating sex offenders. The first is Behavioral Therapy.

Behavioral therapy utilizes rewards and punishments in order to influence behavior. If an offender becomes aroused by talking about or looking at pictures of a "deviant fantasy" he is then punished in some physical way.

The second type is Cognitive Therapy. With help from a therapist, an offender is taught how to change his perceptions about sex. The offender is shown that his crimes are inappropriate. The offender is then supposed to learn his "danger signs" so that he will be able to separate himself from the type of criminal activity he had committed previously.

The third type is Medical Therapy. Basically this involves the use of Depo-Provera. Depo-Provera is a drug that began being used in 1966. It lowers the sex drive of an offender by lowering his testosterone level. This type of therapy is very controversial. There are both short and long term negative side effects associated with the drug.

In addition, there are some who believe that treating very dangerous sex offenders - such as rapists - with a drug does not alter the rage and anger these individuals have; there is some fear that they may express those feelings by committing other forms of fatal physical violence. (Holmes, 1991, p. 113)

In 1988, a Canadian survey was done that asked the sex offenders themselves what kind of treatment they wanted. The 87 offenders were either sexual aggressors against adult females, incest perpetrators or pedophilic offenders. Individual psychotherapy, social skills training and group therapy were the preferred methods. The least acceptable was aversion conditioning (behavioral therapy) and it is the most frequently used therapy. They also found drug therapy to be unacceptable. (Langevin, Wright & Handy, 1988, p. 363-385)

There were two important and interesting facts that the survey revealed. First was "only 49.4% of the subjects wanted treatment." (Langevin, Wright & Handy, 1988, p. 363-385) The second was that "fewer than 2 in 5 considered their anomalous sexual behavior to be problematic." (Langevin, Wright & Handy, 1988, p. 363-385)

There are some that believe that sex offenders can never be rehabilitated. The truth is that many, if not most, regular prisons do not treat sex offenders with any type of therapy. So why should people be opposed to the Washington State sexual predator law and special commitment facility? The special commitment facility is primarily designed for treatment not punishment. Yes, preventive detention is an aspect of the special commitment facility but it is a secondary aspect.

Sex criminals often invoke a somewhat prurient interest in the American public. Their crimes disturb us and disgust us but still we like to hear about them. I believe that the reason we like to hear about them is because we want to try to understand how they could have become the way they are. What makes someone a sex criminal?

One opinion is that sometime during their childhood socialization their development is perverted or somehow left incomplete. As children they never learn that some gratification must be deferred and some completely denied. They do not develop a sense of empathy. Once the personality is in place that lack of empathy cannot be effectively introduced. A lack of empathy is one trait that can define a sociopath.

The following is a list of distinctive characteristics of sex offenders that William E. Prendergast, Ph.D., a certified sex therapist and expert in treating sex offenders, has compiled.

• Basic Inadequate Personality
• Negative Self-Image (Exaggerated)
• Selective Perception
• Exaggerated Control Needs
• Pervasive Guilt-Subjective Judgement
• Nonassertive
• Poor to No Interpersonal Relations
• No Peer Interaction
• Emotions Suppressed/Displaced
• Strong Sexual Performance Needs
• Small Penis Complex (Unreal)
• Distorted Sexual Values
• Deviant Arousal Patterns
• Defective Goal-Setting System
• Easily Discouraged - Quits
• Identity Confusion
• Cleverness In Dealing With Others
• Highly Manipulative (Prendergast, 1991, p. 4)

Mr. Leslie Allen Williams, a Detroit area serial rapist and murderer, was asked what he thought could have helped him before he started into his life of crime. He replied, "I just never got the belief systems in me. I had no respect for me. I developed no self-worth, no self-esteems." (Oprah Winfrey Show, 1993)

However, simply because one didn't develop perfectly or because they themselves were abused as children, that doesn't compel them into violent sexual criminal activity. Evil is still a choice. That must seem like a contradiction but it is not. Although I am saying that they cannot be rehabilitated that does not mean they cannot be deterred from their crimes.

For my interview I telephoned (on November 17, 1993) the Attorney General's Office of Washington State located in Seattle, Washington. I talked with Mick Stewart who is the Chief Investigator for the Criminal Division of the Washington State Attorney General's Office.

I asked Mick how many persons are currently committed to the sexual predator prison facility. He replied that there are approximately 15 formally committed and approximately 7 more are awaiting trial to be committed.

Mick informed me that the Supreme Court has rewritten the law to make it absolutely clear that the State must show that there is no less restrictive alternative when attempting to commit someone to the sexual predator prison facility.

I asked Mick what his opinion of the law was and he replied that he liked it and that it has been "...quite successful. Haven't lost a case yet." The Attorney General's office tries all the cases concerning the commitment of a sexual predator except cases located in King and Snohomish counties. Since 1990, more than 700 sex offenders have registered in Snohomish County alone.

The last question I asked him was how often does the sexual predator statute get used? He replied that the End of Sentence Review Committee, which is made up of 10 to 12 people, reviews all sex offenders in the state before their release from prison.

I think everyone will agree that the criminal justice system, as it relates to sex offenders (sexual predators) without the sexual predator laws, does not work. Speaking of the old system in Washington State, David Boerner, author of the sexual predator law said

the failure was not caused by a mistake on the part of some official. ...The legal system seemed to work as it was designed. It basically operated like a game: Vicious predators were set free periodically, and to get them back in prison for a few years, authorities usually had to wait for another woman or child to be mutilated or killed. (Leo, 1993, pp. 21)

Even the sexual predators themselves thought the old way of dealing with sexual predators was, simply, stupid. Andrew Vachss, a lawyer who has dealt with many sexual predators during his years of representing children writes that: "They (sexual predators) always exhibit amazement that we do not hunt them. And that when we capture them, we eventually let them go." (Leo, 1993, pp. 21)

I believe, that registration laws not only help police in investigating sex crimes but "they reinforce to the offender the seriousness of his crime. They keep him honest." (Dr. Donald G. Hoppe, as quoted in The New York Times, February, 1993)

These sexual predator laws aren't meant to forever jail every offender that has ever committed a sex crime. They are meant to treat and preventively detain those that we can predict will commit more violent sex crimes. How will we know who those people are? One way, based on past records, is that they themselves may tell us. One example is Westley Dodd who was recently put to death in Washington State for torturing and killing three boys. During one of his trials he told the court, "If I do escape, I promise you I will kill and rape again, and I will enjoy every minute of it." Luckily, he received his capital punishment sentence before that could happen.

Other sexual predators, however, have said nearly the same and they are right now on the street. Donald Chapman was one of those people. He was living in New Jersey, free after a 12 year sentence for rape and torture of a 23-year-old woman. "His psychiatrist says Chapman has vowed to rape again and has called himself a failure for letting his previous victims live." (Leo, 1993, pp. 21) Kay Jackson, a psychologist, took it upon herself to write up a special report about Chapman and because of that his parole was revoked.

Another way we can predict those that will re-offend is by applying the characteristics that I listed earlier. Those characteristics have been developed through actual hands-on treating of sex offenders. Perhaps, through treatment, we can deter some sex offenders but to deter that means that the individual sex offender must voluntarily give himself into psychiatric treatment. Unfortunately, some sex offenders, as I quoted previously, actually like who they are and what they do and they intend to keep doing it if allowed to. That is when the criminal justice system absolutely must get involved. We must not allow this type of behavior to continue when, determined by characteristics and facts, we can say there is a high probability that it will happen.

Sadly, the incidences of multiple rapists getting a sentence of capital punishment is rare. If we're not going to be allowed to give them the death penalty than something else, just as radical, must be used. We must not allow people like Mr. Wade Navarra, who was convicted of raping 20 women (he served three years in prison), to be returned into society with no treatment and no restrictions. (Oprah Winfrey Show, 1993)

Therefore, although these sexual predator laws (both the special commitment practices and the registration of released sex offenders) test the limits of American jurisprudence I think we must face the challenge to keep them legal.

Personally, I think that all the states should follow Washington State's example and build special commitment facilities for sexual predators. In my opinion, by the volume of violent sexual crimes, we can assume that our current prison system is not effectively nor appropriately dealing with sex offenders. Therefore, something needs to be done. Whether you agree or disagree with their method, at least Washington State is trying to fix the problem.

The American public deserves to have it's criminal justice system working to keep them safe. It's time to stop hiding behind out-dated law and saying - we did all we could - when we know we didn't.