Lowell Sun - October 28, 2009
BOSTON — The county’s top prosecutor thinks juries, not judges, should decide whether Level 3 sex offenders are released back into the community or sent away to a state hospital.
Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone testified yesterday in favor of a piece of legislation that would change the way the court system handles convicted sex offenders who are scheduled to be released from prison.
The bill, filed by Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, and co-sponsored by a number of local lawmakers, would allow the state to request a jury trial to determine whether a sex offender still poses a risk to the public. Under current law, the predator has the power to forgo a jury trial and request that a dangerousness hearing be heard only by a judge.
“Massachusetts is replete with convicted sex offenders who are a serious threat to re-offend because they can’t control their sexual impulses. The real goal here is to give communities who have to live with these offenders in their neighborhoods a voice,” Leone said.
Baddour filed the bill 18 months ago after a convicted sex offender allegedly tried to rape a 6-year-old boy in the New Bedford Public Library. It’s co-sponsored by Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, D-Lowell, Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, and Rep. Colleen Garry, D-Dracut.
Leone would not go so far as to say that judges are making mistakes in cases that involve the release of Level 3 sex offenders, but said he believes juries should be allowed to make the decision based on the strict standards that require prosecutors to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that sex predators are likely to re-offend if not committed to a hospital.
Case history, however, suggests that juries are far more likely than judges to side with the prosecution and send sex offenders away indefinitely.
In Middlesex County, there have been 51 trials since 1999 to determine whether a convicted sex offender still poses a threat to the general public. Of the 27 cases heard before a judge, 44 percent of the offenders were found to be sexually dangerous.
On the flip side, 75 percent of those offenders whose cases went before a jury were found to be dangerous.
“And I don’t have a problem with that,” Baddour said. “These are the worst of the worst and they should be behind bars. If that means going before a jury, then juries should be deciding.”
The current law sets a high bar for prosecutors to prove a sex offender still presents a threat. When a district attorney petitions the court to have a convicted sex offender committed to a treatment facility, the offender is examined by at least three psychiatrists and one or more experts of his or her choosing. Depending on the result of those tests, a trail may be held.
Leone and Baddour say it only makes sense that the state have an equal say in whether that trial goes before a judge or a jury.
“This bill prevents both sides from judge shopping,” said Baddour, suggesting that both state prosecutors and defense attorneys may lobby to have a particular judge hear their case based on a record of decisions.
Leone said sex offenders’ rights are protected under the current laws. He said if juries can decided first-degree murder cases, they should be trusted to make decisions about who lives in their neighborhoods. He also said concerns over burdening the court system with added jury trials should not factor into a decision about public safety.
Because of strict standards of proof, Leone said only 3 percent of the 8,700 cases of offenders scheduled for release over the past five years have gone to trial.
