Published on:

Supreme Court erred…cont

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, after the respondent was released to parole supervision on June 17, 2005, he absconded to Florida and tampered with his electronic monitoring unit, resulting in his parole being revoked on August 15, 2006. The respondent was returned to custody to complete his sentence. The respondent’s scheduled release date of January 23, 2011 brought him within the purview of Article 10 in October 2010.

The issue in this case is whether the Supreme Court erred in ordering the unconditional release of the respondent, based on a finding that the pretrial civil detention provisions mandated by MHL § 10.06(k) are facially unconstitutional.

Article 10 forms the basis of SOMTA, enacted by the Legislature, effective April 13, 2007. The statute was based on legislative findings “that some offenders have mental abnormalities that predispose them to engage in repeated sex offenses.” The Legislature’s concern was that “recidivistic sex offenders pose a danger to society that should be addressed through comprehensive programs of treatment and management.” “Civil management” means either commitment to a secure psychiatric facility, or management in the community under the supervision of the division of parole. The second option is known as strict and intensive supervision and treatment (hereinafter referred to as “SIST”). Drug possession was not involved.

When a detained sex offender is nearing release, the agency with jurisdiction over the offender is required to give notice of the anticipated release to the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Mental Health. The Commissioner is authorized to designate a multidisciplinary staff that will make a “preliminary review” of the need for civil management and whether to refer the person to a case review team.

To Be cont…

Posted in:
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information