Halfords goal laudable, but builds on troubling precedent

Here are three of the reasons why Washington state passed a law that allows authorities to civilly commit violent sexual predators:

A now-47-year-old man who raped at least seven women in the 1970s was released from a treatment program two years after his conviction. Within three months, he raped four more women and committed seven sexually motivated burglaries. His parole was revoked. Twelve years later, he was seen peeping in windows at apartment complexes.

Another 47-year-old man was convicted in 1974 of assault with intent to commit rape after he entered a 70-year-old womans home, ripped off her clothes and beat her. Within a month of his release, he grabbed a 75-year-old woman from her garden, knocked out several of her teeth and sexually attacked her. After he was convicted for that offense, he broke another womans jaw and attempted to tear off her clothes as she tried to escape.

Another man grabbed a 12-year-old boy in 1981 and threatened to mutilate him if he wouldnt submit to sex acts. Less than four months later, the man pulled an 11-year-old boy behind a hay bale and sexually attacked him while holding a knife to his ear. The man went on to sexually attack two 12-year-old boys and a 13-year-old boy at knifepoint the following year and molested a 12-year-old boy in 1983.

The stories are chilling, and there are many more with details so nauseating they could not be published in a family newspaper. Sen. Rick Halford, R-Chugiak, has introduced the latest of a swath of civil commitment bills being passed throughout the country in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision making it constitutional to involuntarily commit a person after he has served time for a sexually related offense.

A number of studies and experts say it is extremely difficult to rid pedophiles and rapists of the loathsome compulsions ruling their lives. These offenders often cannot or will not seek in prison the help they need and will commit more crimes once they are free of the structured life they led behind bars.

Halfords bill would be a useful tool in identifying and isolating such offenders until they can prove they are no longer a menace. Still, the aspect of the bill that makes it most useful is also its most troubling. A person who has paid the price for his crime can be forced, upon his release, to go through a process that could seize his liberty for an unspecified period just because he is merely likely to commit other crimes.

The idea may be useful, but is chilling nevertheless.

If we decide sexual predators are simply too dangerous to have on the streets, the solution is not forced cures, but after a set number offenses to put them behind bars for life. Prosecutors and judges should cure this problem, not mental health professionals.