Court Victory regarding Sex Offender Treatment
A recent Federal Court in the Southern District of Indiana ruled that registered sex offenders who plead guilty could not be compelled to take a sex offender treatment class that forces participants to confess guilt in the crimes for which they are charged, give written consent to disclosure of confession and submit to a polygraph test.
Indiana law Violates Fifth Amendment
The requirement, the court stated, violates the right against self-incrimination, as protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Last year, the 10th Circuit heard a case where, as part of sex offender “treatment”, a probationer is forced to take a sexual history polygraph during which questions about their past behavior are asked. If they refuse, they can be sent back to prison for refusing to participate in “treatment”. If they comply, they might find themselves being investigated for additional crimes they admit to or come up as deceptive on.
Similarly, the 10th Circuit ruled that the practice violates individuals’ Fifth Amendment Rights.
Does anyone have the name of the southern district case in indiana that they’re talking about?
This match’s up pretty closely https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-gutierrez-263
The Florida Supreme Court dealt with something similar to this earlier this year in the Staples case. Basically he pled no contest and was given probation. As part of that probation he too had to attend a group therapy class and “admit his crime.” He did not, was subsequently kicked out and then violated probation shortly after. He was resentenced to prison time where he appealed the violation. The courts decision went in favor of the state (naturally), however, there was a very interesting dissenting opinion written that basically said that anyone who pleads no contest is not forced to admit committing that crime while being sentenced. So forcing them to admit to wrongdoing at risk of getting kicked out of the class for failing to do so is utter crap. I hope Mr. Staples filed a Habeas in the Federal 11th circuit under a 5th Amendment violation.
What about an alford no contest plea. We couldn’t afford a lawyer (sorry but our public defender was totally ineffective) so took the plea bargain. What barring might this have on “treatment”. I am looking for feed back. Thanks
I was accused of first degree, by the accuser and charged one count, one offence period. I went to trial because this didn’t happen, I plead not guilty. I was found not guilty of the accused offence, but was found Guilty of a lesser included offence of second degree…an offence that I wasn’t accused of nor charged with. But because my court appointed attorney requested it to be included in the jury instructions, and because I testified to being touched by the accused, I was found guilty. I had to enter sex offender group in prison. Where I refuse to admit to the charged offence, because the pre-sentence report said I was arrested for first degree, I was required to admit guilt to that charge or be kicked out of sog. I refused, and was kicked out. We are lead to believe that if you don’t succeed in ” State Group” that you will NOT receive a Parole. I had to file in the Court’s to have my PSI corrected, because I was removed from State Group because of a charge that I was accused of and not the charge I was found guilty of. I won, and was put back on the ” waiting list” where I was able to re-enter State Sex offender group. If I didn’t fix my PSI, I was made to believe I will do my Max.
I was in the exact same situation in Indiana. IDOC staff held my Good Time over my head as if I could be held the entire duration of my sentence. I was forced to take the INSOMM program, as they named it. What could I possibly do about it now?
Nevermind, read FACs comment.
Meant say not day.
Shouldn’t the first sentence day not guilty rather than guilty?
I had a ‘polygraph’ incident several years ago. As the result of a polygraph I was accused by the polygrapher and my counselor of grooming a youth in my church. I knew that it was totally false so I challenged them on it. I put $1000 on the table, asked them to do the same, and gave them six months to come up with just one name and the $1000 would be theirs. Likewise, no name and their $1000 would be mine in six months. Instead of having the courage to back up their accusations they got angry at me for questioning their ‘professionalism’. Needless to say the charge and conversation was dropped because it was ‘BS’ from the very beginning. I have had a great relationship with that church for many years…and still no ‘grooming’. That’s just not in my DNA.
I believe there is a typo? The title says “offenders who plead not guilty cannot be…” But the article says “sex offenders who plead guilty could not be…”
Maybe a link or a correction would help?
The plaintiffs, all convicted of sex crimes, argued that since they pleaded not guilty to the crimes they were convicted of, they should not be forced to attend the SOMM program.
Well damn, couldn’t that be a precedent that could be used in any federal district here in Florida?? Because that’s exactly what they do. Make you admit that you did it right off the bat in “treatment.” I plead not guilty as well.