Today's longread is a recent piece published by the Seattle Times. Washington was the first state in the U.S. to authorize civil commitment for sex offenders, which keeps people deemed to be at high-risk of recidivism detained rather than released into society. Keeping someone in civil commitment, however, requires due process, and the Seattle Times did an excellent job of delving into what that entails in practice. It turns out that the state is expending huge sums to maintain this program, and many of those funds go to experts who testify about the offenders risk to society. This article raises a lot of interesting issues about how to balance individual rights versus the public good, especially in the context of cash-strapped state government.
"State wastes millions helping sex predators avoid lockup" by Christine Willmsen
Published in the Seattle Times, January 21, 2012
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017301107_civilcomm22.html
One interesting point in that article is the fact that most attempts to reform the civil commitment process to reduce costs generate huge uproars that largely are based on claims that due process is being denied. This follow-up article, which talks about some specific proposed steps to control costs, seems to illustrate this point very clearly. This is a tough issue with a lot of shades of gray.
"Tiny office says it can save state money on sex-offender defense" by Christine Willmsen
Published in the Seattle Times, January 24, 2012
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017323669_civilcomm25.html
Eric
