Here is the decision in US v. Dowell out of the Western District of Oklahoma. The case represents the first completed hearing under the "sexually dangerous persons" provisions of the AWA. The result was for Dowell and against the Government. Here are some critical portions of the court's reasoning:
Mr. Dowell was convicted by a federal jury in August 1985 of four counts: Rape, Carnal Knowledge of a Female Under Sixteen, Causing Abuse to a Child under Eighteen, and Simple Assault; these charges were based on Mr. Dowell’s November 1984 sexual assault of an eight-yearold girl who was the daughter of Mr. Dowell’s friend...
Mr. Dowell was mandatorily released from federal custody in July of 1998.... After his July 1998 release, Mr. Dowell married Lee Dowell, whom he had met during his incarceration. Mrs. Dowell resides in Olive Branch, Mississippi....
[The Court describes Dowell's several reentries and releases from custody for failed drug test.]
During the time period from his initial release in 1998 through his most recent release in April 2006, there were no reports that Mr. Dowell engaged in child molestation or abuse or in any form of sexually violent conduct....
The sharply conflicting psychological expert testimony – including the results of the only administered test pertinent to detecting deviant sexual arousal patterns which demonstrates no current deviant arousal, the absence of any known sexual misconduct committed by Mr. Dowell during a period of over twenty years of incarceration and over three-and-a-half years in the community as a result of periods of early release, the unrefuted observations of Mr. Dowell’s wife and stepdaughter corroborating that Mr. Dowell has committed no sexual misconduct during periods of release, along with the other evidence and trial testimony, compel the conclusion that the proof in this case does not reflect a high probability that Mr. Dowell “suffers” from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder and is currently a sexually dangerous person. Thus, the government has not met its statutory burden in this case with respect to the second requisite element of proof.
As you might notice, the critical sentence is in the last paragraph and is very long and confusing. Basically, the court found that very old evidence of wrongdoing doesn't indicate present risk of recidivism. The opinion provides a very thorough examination of the diagnostic tools used and the conflicting expert testimony. I think the lesson to be learned from this opinion is that if the government can't show recent sexual misconduct allegations, civil commitment is not likely to be ordered. I think this result makes sense unless every child molester can automatically be entered into treatment facilities. Most of the government expert's belief that Dowell was still a child molester was based upon 20+ year old facts and the statement that pedophilia is mostly a chronic condition. However, taking those statements to their logical extreme would make every molester eligible for commitment. I think the court struck a decent balance in its result. It will be interesting to see how other courts handle similar cases.
Recent Comments