Rethink sex-offender priorities
There are no comments for this page [ Add Comment ]Sunday, April 27, 2008
Sex crimes are among the most serious social ills Utahns deal with: rape, child abuse and the like are criminal acts for which we reserve our most significant contempt.
But our justice system doesn't simply knee-jerk a response in the case of sex offenders; there is some logic applied to sentencing those who are found guilty of the crimes. It makes sense to lock some people away for a long time, while others may pose a low risk for recidivism.
The evaluations that determine which is which, however, cost money. As Standard-Examiner reporter Jesse Fruhwirth wrote last week, psychosexual examinations and sex-offender therapy for indigents are a taxpayer expense, and the state's Adult Probation and Parole Region 2 funding for the exams and treatment has run out -- more money won't be available until July 1. It's easy to understand why the money is short, since Davis, Weber, Morgan and Tooele counties all share a budget of $10,000, the same amount as was allocated in 1996, the last time funding was increased. As our reporter noted: 12 years ago there were 804 sex offenders in the state's jails and prisons; in 2007, there were 1,808.
The governor asked for an extra $1.3 million this year to fund indigent sex offender treatment. The Legislature turned thumbs-down to the request.
We understand lawmakers were prioritizing budget items in a year with uncertain economic prospects, but letting psychosexual examinations and sex-offender therapy languish without increases -- while the number of convicted sex offenders has doubled in 11 years -- is bad public policy. The evaluations are used to help judges determine appropriate terms of incarceration.
Furthermore, the state doesn't automatically pick up the tab for everyone convicted of a sex crime. As Fruhwirth reported, those who have the ability to pay do fund their own exams and treatment. But many of those convicted are rendered indigent the moment they are placed into custody because they lose employment; they should be properly evaluated, and receive treatment in the interest of public safety and, frankly, with an eye toward the potential cost of unnecessary jail or prison time.
Assistant Davis County Attorney Richard Larsen was quoted regarding this issue: "Long-term, it's cheaper to get a psychosexual (evaluation) up front and make the right decisions at sentencing. If someone is not a candidate for prison based on the psychosexual, that saves us money ... because they may not be the danger that we would assume they would be."
All of this is not to say Region 2's Adult Probation and Parole will cease doing psychosexual examinations and sex-offender therapy because it is short the funds. Its managers will trim expenses from other programs in order to fill the gap when needed. But all that does is leave some other necessary justice function short. The opportunity for a long-term solution will be when the Legislature reconvenes in January 2009; at that time, lawmakers should reconsider the funding levels of exams and therapy for indigent sex offenders, and provide whatever level of funding is needed.
Text 
