Special considerations for sex offenders - Columbia Law School

More documents

Recommendations

Info

easoning behind these denials is often that denying prisoners good time is reasonable if theyrefuse to accept treatment for the behavior resulting in their incarceration. 25 Courts havebeen strict in upholding such denials even where:(1) The petitioner was on a wait-list for such a program; 26(2) The petitioner had previously participated in a behavior intervention program andsome sex offender counseling but “refused to sufficiently participate in and completecertain recommended offender and aggression counseling programs” 27 ;(3) The prisoner who was told he needed additional counseling was denied a transfer to afacility with an appropriate sex offender therapy program. 28These cases strongly suggest that you should make every attempt to get counseling, if itis recommended to you.Courts have also rejected the argument that requiring participation in sex offender andaggression therapy programs violates a petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights against selfincrimination.29D. HIV TestingCurrently, almost every state has a statute allowing or requiring courts to orderdefendants charged with sex offenses or convicted sex offenders to submit to testing for HIV,the virus that causes AIDS. 30 Additionally, the federal government may perform HIV testing24. See Benjamin v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs. 19 A.D.3d 832, 833, 796 N.Y.S.2d 747, 747(3d Dept. 2005) (citing Bolster v. Goord, 300 A.D.2d 711, 713, 752 N.Y.S.2d 403, 405 (3d Dept. 2002)(upholding prison’s Time Allowance Committee’s revocation of prisoner’s good-time credits on theground that the prisoner refused to participate in the prison’s sex offender treatment program));Lamberty v. Schriver, 277 A.D.2d 527, 528, 715 N.Y.S.2d 510, 511 (3d Dept. 2000) (holding that TimeAllowance Committee’s decision to withhold good-time credit from defendant for failure to attendrecommended treatment programs was not “irrational or contrary to law” and therefore was not subjectto judicial review); Ferry v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 720, 721, 704 N.Y.S.2d 315, 316 (3d Dept. 2000) (holdingthat the withholding of good-time credits because prisoner failed to participate in recommendedcounseling programs was reasonable); Jones v. Coombe, 269 A.D.2d 632, 632, 703 N.Y.S.2d 554, 554 (3dDept. 2000) (finding it was not irrational to withhold good-time credits when prisoner refused toparticipate in recommended counseling programs); Coleman v. Boyle, 270 A.D.2d 739, 739–40, 705N.Y.S.2d 419, 420 (3d Dept. 2000) (holding that withholding of prisoner’s good-time credits was notunreasonable nor contrary to law where prisoner delayed seeking counseling); Staples v. Goord, 263A.D.2d 943, 944, 695 N.Y.S.2d 190, 191 (3d Dept. 1999) (upholding prison’s Time AllowanceCommittee’s denial of prisoner’s request for good-time credits because he had not completed sexoffender counseling, even though he was on the wait list, because he had twice before decided not toparticipate in a counseling program).25. Majeed v. Goord, 279 A.D.2d 832, 833 (3d Dept. 2001).26. Staples v. Goord, 263 A.D.2d 943, 944, 695 N.Y.S.2d 190, 191 (3d Dept. 1999) (upholdingprison’s Time Allowance Committee’s denial of prisoner’s request for good-time credits because he hadnot completed sex offender counseling, even though he was on the wait list, because he had twice beforedecided not to participate in counseling).27. Jones v. Coombe, 269 A.D.2d 632, 632, 703 N.Y.S.2d 554, 554 (3d Dept. 2000).28. Coleman v. Boyle, 270 A.D.2d 739, 740, 705 N.Y.S.2d 419, 420 (3d Dept. 2000) (holding thatbelated requests for counseling following petitioner’s refusal to participate in similar programs do notconstitute sufficient participation with regard to good time allowance credit).29. Lamberty v. Schriver, 277 A.D.2d 527, 527, 715 N.Y.S.2d 510, 511 (3d Dept. 2000) (finding itdoes not violate the 5th Amendment to require participation in sex offender and aggression therapyprograms); Burke v. Goord, 273 A.D.2d 575, 575, 710 N.Y.S.2d 136, 137 (3d Dept. 2000) (holding thatwithholding of good-time credits for failure to participate in sexual offender programs does not violatethe 5th Amendment).30. See, e.g., Ala. Code § 22-11A-17 (2008) (requiring anyone convicted for 30 days or more to betested for sexually transmitted diseases); Alaska Stat. § 18.15.300 (2004) (testing at the court’sdiscretion and victim’s request); Alaska Stat. § 18.15.310 (2004); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1415 (2001& Supp. 2005) (giving courts discretion to order HIV testing); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-82-101 (2005) (giving
on any prisoner who has a sentence of at least six months if the health services staffdetermines that the prisoner is at risk for HIV infection. The federal government may alsoperform an HIV test on any prisoner who may have transmitted HIV (intentionally orcourts discretion to order testing); Cal. Penal Code § 1202.1 (West 2004) (requiring court to ordertesting for convicted sex offenders); Cal. Penal Code § 1524.1 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) (giving courtsdiscretion to order HIV testing of accused sex offenders at the request of the victim); Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-3-415 (2004) (requiring court to order testing); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 54-102a (West 2001) (givingcourts discretion); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 54-102b (West 2001) (giving courts discretion to order atvictim’s request); Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 1077(a) (1999) (requiring testing at request of victim); Del.Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3911 (2001) (requiring judge to inform defendant of availability of testing); Del.Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3912 (2001) (requiring testing at request of victim); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 960.003 (WestSupp. 2006) (requiring court to order test); Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-15 (2004) (giving judge discretion toorder testing on victim’s request); Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 801D-4(b) (Lexis 2003) (describing victim’s“right to be informed” of the prisoner’s HIV status); Idaho Code Ann. § 39-601 (2002); Idaho Code Ann.§ 39-604 (2002) (requiring testing for all infectious diseases, including HIV and AIDS, for all personcharged with and convicted of sex offenses); 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/5-5-3(g) (West 2007 & Supp.2005) (requiring testing for HIV and AIDS); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-1-10.5 (Lexis 1998 & Supp. 2005)(requiring testing of convicted sex offenders); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-1-10.6 (Lexis 1998 & Supp. 2005)(requiring notification of victim); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-1-10.7 (Lexis 1998 & Supp. 2005) (requiringtest of alleged offender at victim’s request); Iowa Code Ann. § 915.42 (West 2003) (requiring testingonly if petitioner/victim has proved certain facts); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-6009 (2002) (requiring testingupon victim’s request); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 510.320 (Lexis 1999 & Supp. 2005) (requiring testing uponconviction); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:535 (2005) (requiring testing upon conviction); La. Code Crim.Proc. Ann. art. 499 (2003) (requiring testing upon conviction); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 19203-F(1964) (requiring testing upon victim’s petition); Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 11-112 (Lexis 2001 &Supp. 2005) (requiring testing upon conviction at request of victim); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.5129(West 2001 & Supp. 2006) (testing at court’s discretion); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 611A.19 (West 2003 &Supp. 2006) (requiring testing upon the consent or petition of victim); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-203(2000) (requiring testing); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 191.663 (West 2004) (requiring testing upon conviction);Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-256 (2004) (requiring testing at victim’s request); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2290(1995) (requiring testing at request of victim); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 441A.320 (Lexis 2005) (requiringtesting “as soon as practicable” after arrest for a crime involving sexual penetration); N.H. Rev. Stat.Ann. § 632-A:10-b (1996) (requiring testing upon conviction); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:4A-43.1 (West 1987 &Supp. 2003) (requiring testing of juveniles charged and convicted of sexual offenses); N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C:43-2.2 (West 2005) (requiring testing on request of victim); N.M. Stat. § 24-2B-5.1 (2000) (requiringtesting at petition of crime victim); N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 390.15 (McKinney 2005) (requiring testingfor certain Article 130 crimes); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 15A-534.3 (West 2005) (requiring testing uponfinding of probable cause of exposure); N.D. Cent. Code § 23-07.7-01 (2002) (giving discretion to thecourt); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.27 (West Supp. 2006) (requiring testing at request of victim orprosecutor); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63, § 1-524 (West 2004) (requiring testing after arrest); Okla. Stat.Ann. tit. 63, § 1-525 (West 2004); Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.139 (2001) (requiring upon request of victim); Or.Rev. Stat. § 137.076 (2001) (allowing the District Attorney or victim to request testing of a defendantafter being charged with a crime that could involve transmission of fluids); 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §7608 (West 2003) (testing allowed when certain conditions are met); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-34-10 (2002)(requires testing); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-37-17 (2002) (requiring testing at the request of victim); S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-740 (2003) (testing at discretion of court, upon request by victim); S.C. Code Ann. §16-15-255 (Law Co-op. 2003); S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35B-3 (Michie 1998) (requiring testing atrequest of victim); S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35B-5 (2004); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-521 (2003)(requiring testing); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.31 (Vernon Supp. 2005) (testing at discretion ofthe court); Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-502 (1999); Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-504 (2003) (requiring testing); Vt.Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3256 (Supp. 2005) (requiring testing at victim’s request); Va. Code Ann § 18.2-62(Supp. 2005) (allowing defendant to refuse test before conviction, in which case probable cause hearingwill be held; after conviction, testing required if victim requests it); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 70.24.340(West 2002) (placing responsibility for pretest counseling, HIV test, and post-test counseling on localhealth departments); W. Va. Code Ann. § 16-3C-2(f) (Lexis 2001) (requiring testing after conviction fora sex offense); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 968.38 (West Supp. 2005) (testing discretionary at request of victim);Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-1-109 (2005) (requiring testing at victim’s request).
Page 1 and 2: A Jailhouse Lawyer’sManualChapter
Page 3 and 4: CHAPTER 32SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FO
Page 5: assigned treatment program.” 14 A
Page 9 and 10: need for the test arises from a spe
Page 11 and 12: ecent case law on this testing prov
Page 13 and 14: The pamphlet includes a “menu”
Page 15 and 16: town, and village) authorities, be
Page 17 and 18: did not just live there. 90 The cou
Page 19 and 20: Using the Sex Offender Registration
Page 21 and 22: (e) Additional AmendmentsA number o
Page 23 and 24: who SORNA applies to, and the deadl
Page 25 and 26: subject to “at least the duration
Page 27 and 28: (iii)The Public through the Nationa
Page 29 and 30: keeping requirements set forth in s
Page 31 and 32: Constitution. 185 In that case, the
Page 33 and 34: (1) The person must have engaged in
Page 35: commitment as a sexually dangerous

Special considerations for sex offenders - Columbia Law School

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?