Thursday October 11, 2007, will not go down as a day to be proud of in the history of Connecticut politics.
It’s the day the governor and the attorney general went to court to try to keep a convicted serial rapist in prison after he had already served his sentence. The last minute attempt to thwart the justice system was stopped by a New London Superior Court judge, but it set in motion a series of events that will likely spill over into the next legislative session and result in new laws that may be a recipe for political abuse.
It is difficult to come to the defense of a criminal convicted of rape. It is easy to understand the outrage of the residents of the suburban Southbury neighborhood the convict moved in to after his release from prison. Politically speaking the easy play is to side with the neighbors.
But from the point of view of fairness it is dead wrong to cast aside a fundamental principle of justice to satisfy a vocal minority. The fundamental principle at stake here is the accepted concept that every conviction carries a sentence and once that sentence is served a convict is released and given another chance to re-enter society. The sentence cannot be extended arbitrarily — especially for political reasons.
Altered Attitudes
In the aftermath of October 11th, most in state government acknowledge the collision of politics and law that occurred that day was misguided and extra legal. Unfortunately, the realization will not stop efforts to change the law to make it possible for future governors and attorneys general to pull off what the court stopped.
So far, at least one major newspaper in the state and several lawmakers have suggested expanding Connecticut’s civil commitment law. This change would allow the state to use a court hearing to commit sex offenders to a psychiatric hospital, or some similar setting, beyond the length of their criminal sentence. A form of indefinite detention.
These laws exist in at least 15 other states. They are politically popular. No one wants a convicted sex offender living next door. The problem is many sex offenses do not carry life terms. Civil commitment is a way around that — flawed as it may be.
A federal judge in North Carolina struck down a federal civil commitment law in October, ruling it is unconstitutional to confine someone in a mental institution beyond the length of their criminal sentence.
Judge Earl Britt ruled the government cannot confine an inmate indefinitely based solely “on the fear” they might commit another crime. He said in most cases it would be very difficult to prove a past offender is “sexually dangerous beyond a reasonable doubt” and eligible for post sentence pre-emptive detention.
Too Subjective
The civil commitment precedent is dangerous. It is highly subjective and vulnerable to public outcry. We don’t want civil commitment for sex offenders for the same reason we don’t want elected judges. The justice system should not be swayed by public opinion.
The principle of paying your debt to society by serving a well defined sentence is put at risk if the courts can use this new tool to change the rules on a case by case basis.
The sex offender registry law is politically popular, but as a result every offender on the registry has been branded for life even though there are different degrees of sex offenses.
The Southbury case has created the political climate for action. We can only hope any law written in the aftermath of this highly charged case does not carry with it dangerous precedents for us all.
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is V.P. of Public Affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
