A Stitch in Haste

I blogged back in October against New York Governor George Pataki's executive order confining, without due process, convicted sex offenders to mental hospitals after their prison sentences have ended. Pataki described this maneuver (i.e., circumventing the Fourteenth Amendment) as "pushing the envelope." Others might call it being an "activist" politician. Still others might call it unconstitutional.

Like a judge, for instance:

Justice Jacqueline W. Silbermann of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, found that the 12 men had been denied their right to an independent hearing and an examination by court-appointed doctors to determine whether they suffered from mental illness to the degree that they needed to be involuntarily confined to an institution.

She also said there had been no finding by court-appointed doctors that they posed a substantial risk to themselves or others.

Justice Silbermann did not order the men released immediately. But she directed ... them to be examined by two court-appointed physicians as soon as possible. The offenders would be confined if both physicians found that they required involuntary hospitalization, she said; otherwise, they would be released.

People who are found, via an independent and objective process, to be dangerously mentally ill are confined. Those who aren't, aren't. Is this such a difficult concept for Governor Pataki?

Remember, these are ex-convicts who are in the state's penal custody up until the point where Pataki wants to move them to a mental hospital. How can the state claim not to have ample opportunity to determine their mental competence and risk to society while they're in prison?

Patkai's policy has no basis in the law or common sense and is mere political grandstanding. There is a clear, well-established process for confining the dangerously disturbed. And there is no reason for New York not to follow that process. (Which, of course, is not stopping Pataki from appealing the ruling.)