This one raises a lot of questions. Looks like the prosecutors disagree with the shrink, but in order to "fix" the shrink's action, the prosecutors are pushing an envelope.
When Michael Monyelle stands trial next month, prosecutors aim to show that he is among the state's most dangerous sexual predators and should be committed - perhaps for the rest of his life - for treatment as a "sexually violent person."
But what landed Monyelle in hot water wasn't anything he did.
It was what he thought.
He told his parole agent that he was having deviant thoughts about children, and his disclosures are being used against him by prosecutors who contend he is apt to act on his thoughts.
The guy has a past:
...consensual sexual contact with two underage girls when he was 19 and 20, and [sexual contact] with a 9-year-old boy when he was 16
...for which he spent time in prison. He was released, with supervision.
Linda Morrison, executive director of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, termed the decision to seek a commitment under such circumstances "a judgment call."
"These cases are very complicated," Morrison said. "You've got to start somewhere to look for markers that are indicators of possible future violence.
"The judgment here is that the thoughts he is expressing are indicating what is in his head and what could lead to violence."
OK.
At the same time, Monyelle did not 'do the crime:'
"I see kids on the street and I look and I have (deviant) thoughts. But I keep on going to where I was going."
The first question, of course, is 'if this guy is a danger, why was he released?'
...court records indicate that a psychologist retained by the defense, Luis Rosell, has concluded that Monyelle "does not pose a serious risk for sexual violence" and can be safely returned to Waukesha on parole...
The second question is 'whether incarceration for thoughts?'
Monyelle also skipped a number of scheduled meetings with his parole officer, which presumably contributed to the case for prosecuting.
Hmmmm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Commitment seems like a better option. It isn't unheard having people who can't socially function being in society. I've met plenty of such folks myself. The only positive I see is that this guy has an awareness of his intincts and is persevering.
My opinion: Continued parole. [sarcastic snark]Thank you federal courts for not allowing involuntary commitment, which would be a better option if this guy doesn't voluntarily go to therapy.[end sarcastic remark]
Both of your questions are answered by the fact that the State is seeking an involuntary civil commitment, not criminal incarceration.
What the JS story doesn't make clear is that this is a Chapter 980 procedure, which is separate from the criminal statutes.
Post a Comment