In memory of the list of NJ special treatment unit residents to whom have died and would have peitioned our government to demand an executive order and senate bill.

This book "Civilly Committed" is in support to free Russell (Mac T) Tinsley from the New Jersey prison punishing him wrongfully. The readers will be shown how Russell Tinsley is trying to make good progress in his treatment and how the State's psychiatrists and therapists at the Special Treatment Unit, needlessly keeps him away from treatment necessary to advance towards release, when in fact, they suppose to give him the credit towards this progress, as well as to let the civil commitment's court aware about his progress.

 

This book is authored by Russell Tinsley and by some of his supporters to educate the Public about the good progress Russell Tinsley is making in his treatments' groups and how much he has learned from his mistakes as well as how serious he is about not re offending and would like to process this information as just one of his discharge plans, to educate the Public, about hows he is doing all he can to do to make steps in the right direction and he would appreciate the thoughts of the Public about this book, with their feedback.

 

We believe the Public will like to know about Russell Tinsley's progress he has been making, to help him out of his situation, with their protest for his discharge from civil commitment, as well as can be used to further provide their concern; or support for their argument not only for his discharge, but to get the civil commitment judges, state and federal representatives; or state senators and governors alike, to advocate for the improvements needed to make changes in the civil commitment's laws.

 

We are hoping that the News Media will cover Mr. Tinsley's story about his civil commitment and the conditions of his confinements, that will educate and inspire the Public to continue their support to become advocates for improvements and/or for the abolition of these harsh civil commitment systems.

 

We further believe, the Public has a right to know whats really happening about the circumstances surrounding other residents "civilly committed" at the Special Treatment Unit, in Avenel, New Jersey, with no hope of ever getting out of being lock-away for life, from the free world.

 

If the Public only knew the real truth behind civil commitment, that's being kept away from them, they would not only be an Public outrage, but it will be an out lash of support to release Russell Tinsley.

 

The information in this book is Russell Tinsley's approach to process his treatment participation with the Public, and an giant step in the right direction, further then just processing his information about Therapy-Treatment in his groups, so that the Public may have a better understanding of Russell Tinsley's character development, for release.

 

Russell Tinsley

 

CURE-SORT NEWS

Volume 24, Issue 4 Fall 2015

Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has supported the program as a needed public safety tool. He has said judges

In this issue:

Page 2: From the Editor’s Desk

Page 3: Judge - Continued

Page 4: New Jersey Civil Commitment Program

Page 5: Progress Through Psychotherapy

Conclusion of Hearing Offers

Page 6: Hearing Offers Minn. Sex Offender Program

:

ST. LOUIS • In an awaited ruling from the federal bench, U.S. District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig ruled Sept. 11 that Missouri’s sexually violent predator law is constitutional, but not how sits applied.

The judge wrote that there is a “pervasive sense of hopelessness” at the Department of Mental Health’s Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services, or SORTS program, because patients aren’t being properly released.

With help from the state attorney general’s office, SORTS is indefinitely committing about 200 people to treatment on the belief that they might reoffend. The program has been praised and criticized since it began in 1999.

Before the trial started in April, nobody had completed treatment and been allowed to live outside of secure SORTS facilities in Fulton or Farmington. They entered the program after completing prison sentences for sex crimes.

“The overwhelming evidence at trial — much of which came from Defendants’ own experts — did establish that the SORTS civil commitment program suffers from systemic failures regarding risk assessment and release that have resulted in the continued confinement of individuals who no long meet the criteria for commitment, in violation of the Due Process Clause,” Fleissig wrote in her ruling.

“The Constitution,” the judge added, “does not allow (Missouri officials) to impose lifetime detention on individuals who have completed their prison sentences and who no longer pose a danger to the public, no matter how heinous their past conduct.”

Those issues were to be addressed in the remedy portion of the trial. A hearing was scheduled Sept. 29.

“I can’t believe it, man,” said John Van Orden, 55, who lived in the Springfield, Mo., area before being committed to SORTS in 2005. “It’s hard to describe after all that we have been through here. Finally, we get some light at the end of the tunnel.”

The class-action lawsuit began in 2009.

Eric Selig, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said, “We hope to work with the attorney general’s office and the Department of Mental Health to fix the program and start releasing the people who have successfully completed treatment, which is what the statute is all about.”

Nanci Gonder, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Chris Koster, said by email: “We are reviewing the ruling and decline to comment further on pending litigation.”

Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has supported the program as a needed public safety tool. He has said judges weigh annual reports to determine when patients deserve to be released. And the Legislature, now Republican –controlled, adds a layer of oversight, scrutinizing the program’s budget.

. Plaintiffs’ attorneys attempted to punch holes in these positions and others during the eight-day federal bench trial that ended here April 30.

The judge agreed. In her ruling, she said the state of Missouri has not:

 Performed annual reviews in accordance with the Sexually Violent Predator Act.

 Properly implemented any program to ensure the least restrictive environment.

 Implemented release procedures, including director authorization for releases, in the manner required by the law.

Judge –

Judge Rules Handling of Missouri Program is Unconstitutional

By Jesse Bogan, St.Louis Post-Dispatch

 

From the Editor’s Desk

By Wayne Bowers

 

Legal decisions by judges continue to occur and to point to methods used in civil commitment as unconstitutional and more media attention is criticizing the residency laws, along with court action. Minnesota and Missouri civil commitment programs have been deemed unconstitutional as you’ve followed in other stories and it would be my thought that the other 18 states with such programs are scrambling as they see the writing on the wall. The frustration is the slow movement of a settlement on these two states’ decisions as lawmakers stonewall and claim what is being done is constitutional. It appears further court action is imminent. . .

The New York Times’ editorial of Sept. 8 granted that everyone wants to make sure children are safe. But they stated in their conclusion, “But not all people who have been convicted of sex offenses pose a risk to children, if they pose any risk at all. Blanket residency-restriction laws disregard that reality — and the merits of an individualized approach to risk assessment — in favor of a comforting mirage of safety.” The editorial pointed out that judges are striking back as state Supreme Courts in California, Massachusetts and New York struck down residency laws in 2015. . . .

 

There are other court challenges in the works. And there also are individual efforts to challenge their civil detainment. One such person who has contacted us is Russell Tinsley, held in the New Jersey STU unit for over five years. He has a promotion team and press release promoting his book Civilly Committed! He breaks down the treatment program he has attempted to follow to improve his life and challenges the need for lawmakers to make improvements and changes to the civil commitment laws. His efforts can be found at www.russelltinsley.vpweb.com to obtain a copy of the book. . . .

 

We follow monthly the efforts of a Kansas coalition seeking to get change in their civil commitment facility and we are now also communicating with a New Jersey group of people seeking change in that state. They too are learning the slow movement of process and improvement but are diligent in their efforts. . . . More coordinated efforts by people with Reform Sex Offender Laws are making specific challenges and bringing public attention to registry and residency laws in particular states. As this organization gains more stature and experience, and people in various states are willing to go public, challenges of media approaches to stories and of specific action toward individuals is bringing exposed.

No space for letters in this edition but one that came from a long-time member of CURE-SORT named Clifford in California made interesting points, “Things do move slow to change as many of us sit in here, as states as California make many of us and family/friends wonder if they/us will see ‘real’ change in our lifetime. Prisons and the outside do have a certain negative mindset toward these kind. 100-108 degree days in a state yelling for water. Many might start moving out of state. Many are saying California is getting ‘pay-back’ for its wrongs!”

 

Judge -

At the center of the case in Missouri—and other states struggling with similar laws—was the question of whether SORTS facilities genuinely rehabilitate sex offenders, or are merely an extra layer of punishment outside of the prison system. In June, a federal judge in Minnesota ruled that indefinitely committing sex offenders is unconstitutional.

While the Missouri Attorney General’s Office argued at trial that progress is being made in treatment, plaintiffs’ attorneys harped on the fact that no patient had been released back into society. They used the state’s own witness to point out a sense of hopelessness among staff and patients, who already have completed prison sentences before being detained indefinitely for treatment.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys sifted through hundreds of thousands of pages of the program’s documents, including a memo from former chief of operations who wrote in 2009 that 16 patients could be moved to the St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center, a less restrictive facility at 5300 Arsenal Street.

In the memo, Alan Blake wrote that the top five of those 16 patients could be moved “today” and “easily” pass a test that shows they can live close to neighbors without harm.

“The rest may need greater support/treatment, but don’t represent a risk to the community in terms of compliance and appreciation of their situation,” Blake added. “The setting would likely enhance their treatment and provide motivation.”

The memo went on to say that a few of the patients would even make good employees or peer counselors at the St. Louis rehab center.

Testimony in the federal case showed that those details — ones that seemed to show favorable patient progress — weren’t included in the annual reports to courts that make the ultimate decision about release.

With the addition of 20 SORTS patients a year and nobody being released, plaintiffs’ attorneys pressed the issue of reforming the program and developing a fast track to a nursing home for elderly and infirm patients. At least 17 patients have died in the program, including one who was well into his 80s.

Joel Poole, chief litigator for the attorney general’s office, told the court in April that the program had passed federal scrutiny in a Civil Rights Act case brought by a patient in 2009. U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber weighed complaints and concerns in that case about treatment and wrote in his decision that some treatment likely fell below professional standards but not enough to “shock the conscience” to be declared constitutionally inadequate.

SORTS today is a substantially better program than it was in 2009,” Poole said during closing arguments. “It is moving toward its goals.”

He said the program became accredited as a mental hospital and provides treatment with a series of phases to work through, including the goal of release.

“This program is working hard to get people out,” Poole said.

But, in her ruling, Fleissig wrote that “systemic failures have created a pervasive sense of hopelessness at SORTS that is undermining what little improvement the SORTS treatment programs have made.”

Since the first phase of the trial ended in April, the Department of Mental Health said two patients have been allowed to leave SORTS, but under certain conditions.

 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

 

Wayne Bowers Thomas Chleboski

Norman, OK Baltimore, MD

Ila Davis Mike Dell

Birch Run, MI Colorado Springs, CO

Dr. Nancy Irwin David LaMure

Los Angeles, CA Alto, NM

Jim Prager Dr. JoEllen Wiggington Toledo, OH Van Nuys, CA

 

CURE-SORT News is a publication of CURE-SORT. SORT stands for Sex Offenders Restored through Treatment. CURE-SORT is one of eight issue chapters of a national criminal justice reform organization known as Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), located in Washington, D.C. CURE’s address is P.O. Box 2310,

Washington, D.C. 20013. For more information on CURE-SORT, send letters to:

CURE-SORT

P.O. Box 1022

Norman, OK 73070-1022

(405) 639-7262

e-mail: info@cure-sort.org

web: www.cure-sort.org

Editor and Publisher: Wayne Bowers Production Assistant: Ed Gundersen