Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["Sheila McCaffrey" <>]

*For Immediate Release from Friends & Family of Coalinga Civil Detainees,
Contact: Sheila McCaffrey, Spokesperson Email:
:
 January 2, 2008
*

*California Department of Mental Health Explains Why Gang Members Who Rape
Women Don't Need Sex Offender Treatment Or Civil Confinement To Protect the
Community*

*Coalinga State Hospital Detainee, John Lofton, spoke by phone with Brenda
Epperly-Ellis, Chief of the Sexual Offender Commitment Program, from her
office in the California Department of Mental Health in Sacramento on
November 19, 2007.*

*Lofton had called Epperly-Ellis to discuss D.M.H. criteria for selecting
candidates for involuntary civil confinement after completing their prison
sentences. His question to her follows:*

"Of those people who are detained here under the S.V.P.A. (Sexually Violent
Predator Act) since 1996, its year of enactment, it has become clear that
there are few, if any, gang members convicted of sex crimes within our
commitment, despite high rates of sexual offense among gang members.

Why are gang members, who usually *are* violent, excluded from S.V.P.?
Instead, sex offenders with gang affiliation are free to return home after
serving their prison terms while we face lifetime confinement in the
Department of Mental Health even though many here are not violent at all?

*Her reply to Mike St. Martin **(original document:
<http://hosprisoners.googlepages.com/BrendaEpperly-Ellis_LTR.gif> )
http://sheilamccoffee.googlepages.com/BrendaEpperly-Ellis_LTR.gif<http://hosprisoners.googlepages.com/BrendaEpperly-Ellis_LTR.gif>
*

November 26, 2007

To: John Lofton
Coalinga State Hospital
24511 West Jayne Avenue
Coalinga, CA 93210

From: Brenda Epperly-Ellis, S.O.C.P.

Subject: SVP/Gang Affiliation

Dear Mr. Lofton,

I am writing to you in regards to the questions we discussed by telephone
regarding gang members in the Sexual Offender Commitment Program. I have
checked with both our Legal Department and our experienced evaluators to
provide a response to your concern.

There are no statutes that protect gang members from a sexually violent
predator commitment. Gang affiliation is considered in the evaluation
because it is a significant risk factor for sexual re-offense. The sexual
offenses of gang members are one of many types of criminal offenses they
commit. *Gang members often commit a rape in concert and it is motivated by
violence not by deviance. Generally, this is not due to a mental disorder
and they stop doing those types of offenses as they get older.*

I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have any further
questions please feel free to contact me via mail at the address above.

Sincerely,

Brenda Epperly-Ellis, Chief
Sexual Offender Commitment Program, 1600 9th Street, RM 250, Sacramento, CA
95814, 916-653-1843

*Response From Detainee Mike St. Martin to Brenda Epperly-Ellis:
*(also see: The California Legislature's Greatly Revised Dictionary of the
English Language following Mike's response)

Statistics consistently show that *our* rate of reoffense goes down with
age, too. But that doesn't keep you from holding us here until our 70's or
80's while gang members often get out of prison while still in their 20's or
30's. And gang members have a rate of recidivism of more than 70% while ours
are less than 5%. What's more, the average age of Detainees here is nearly
60 and most committed their crimes more than twenty years ago. Thirty people
have died in custody, three times as many as the courts have released after
completion of the program.

So how is it that those gang affiliated sex offenders with a documented
history of violence who have raped and abused women are not considered
"Sexually Violent Predators"?"

It's very telling that you find "deviance" to be more of a threat to society
than "violence". The public has been lead to believe that the offender
profile most to be feared is that of the socially isolated sex offender, not
of the violent gangster who, amongst all other things, is a rapist.

By excluding the "violent" and focusing on "the deviant", you simultaneously
appease the public and avoid the difficult custody problems encountered by
the Department of Corrections when incarcerating gang members.

Those not conforming to your preferred offender profiles find no place in
your program and do not appear in the statistics which purport to
demonstrate its value. Indeed, it has been suggested that you would find
their introduction to be a contamination of your narrowly-focused study of
offenders, although I find the suggestion that your treatment teams are
capable of conducting any "scientific study" laughable on its face.

The demonstrated statistical reality is that the dangerousness of gang
members who rape is far greater than that of the individual pedophile who,
alarming headlines to the contrary, is rarely violent. But keeping gang
members in cages is far more difficult, isn't it?

*The California Legislature's Greatly Revised Dictionary of the English
Language (Abridged) *

Prisoners in California's Department of Corrections, upon completion of
their prison sentences for sexually related crimes, are evaluated for
consideration as *"Sexually Violent Predators"*. At that point, State
Evaluators make a recommendation to have the individual detained in Civil
Confinement under the authority of the Department of Mental Health if they
consider him to be "S.V.P.", or to be allowed to leave the prison system
onto parole and out into the community if they do not.

*What is a "Sexually Violent Predator (S.V.P.)" under California law?* The
State's criteria for determining "Sexual Violence" is very different from
the definition for the word "violent" found in any dictionary or any
reasonable person's understanding of the term. As it is now defined, *neither
actual violence nor coercion* is needed for a crime to meet the statutory
definition of "sexually violent" under California law. In the case of child
sex offenders, all that is needed to classify an offender as "*violent*" is
that they have "*substantial sexual contact**"* with a person under the age
of 14, *regardless of consent**. *Even if the "victim" had been perfectly
willing to engage in sexual contact with the "perpetrator", he will be
considered, for the purposes of classification and consideration for
lifetime commitment, a "*sexually violent predator*".

What's more, *"**Sexual contact**"* can consist of mere touching, *even
through clothing *and *even if what is being touched is not genitalia* (such
as feet or back or shoulders). In this case, the "thoughts" of the
perpetrator are what matter, since any physical contact whatsoever is a
felony given *"**sexual intent**"*. *"**Thought Crimes**" *are punishable
under California Criminal Code 288 with the very real possibility of a life
sentence!

The term "*predator*" itself is also intended to mislead. According to
California's "dictionary" a "predator" need not employ actual violence,
force or coercion. In this context, a "predator" may simply be someone who
is unrelated as family to the "victim", such as a friend or "casual
acquaintance". It is for this reason that those convicted of incest are less
likely to find themselves being civilly committed after serving their prison
sentence than those who had a friendship (a voluntary relationship) with
their "victims".

The "*Static 99*" is a scoring system which purports to estimate risk for
reoffense and is used in further determining eligibility for civil
confinement. In practice, it especially penalizes men (and it's only used on
men) who are *unmarried* and *homosexual* (with male "victims") and not
related by family to their "victims". Such an offender will receive two
additional "points" indicating reoffense risk. He will receive one more
point if he has not known his "victim" for at least 24 hours before sexual
contact. The maximum number of points that can be scored on the Static 99 is
only 12.

Ironically, one of the definitions for *"violent"* which *is* found in
Webster's dictionary is the following: *"of, pertaining to, or constituting
a distortion of meaning or fact." *Does this sound like a Legislature we
know?

*See this same document on the web:
http://sheilamccoffee.googlepages.com/californiadepartmentofmentalhealthexplai
*