New York: Should former governor George Pataki be held accountable over an illegal confinement program for sex offenders. The program was discarded in 2006 and a Federal Appeals Court is deliberating over liability. In 2013 ex governor Pataki faced litigation and was sued over the ill fated program, termed The Sexually Violent Predator Initiative. Seemingly hurried in to existence following the fatal stabbing of a Westchester County female by a sex offender on parole.
Mental health officials in the state were put under pressure by Pataki to find a means to confine and control sex offenders without state Legislature approval. This put forward in a recap of events. The program, within a year, was ruled as unconstitutional. However an alternative program approved by legislation replaced it. This allowed the state to contain dangerous sex offenders under lock and key indefinitely. The program (Civil Confinement) is still in existence with over three hundred sex offenders held indefinitely within the State’s mental institutions.
Former Governor George Pataki attended Federal Court in 2013. He put forward a testimony over the number of sex offenders ( around one hundred ) that were involuntary institutionalized following prison sentences. This testimony came about in a Manhattan federal court (Civil Trial) following 6 convicted sex offenders who sued the State and Pataki.
The lawsuit directed at Pataki didn’t procure any punishment as a jury only awarded $1 to those sex offenders that were confined by the illegal program. However a Federal Appeals Court have heard arguments on Friday (5th) as to another trial that could cost Pataki a lot more money should he be found liable. New York Law Journal Report.
The journal reported that a pivotal question revolves around if the 112 men that were confined under the program would have experienced the same outcome subject to the legal confinement program.
DISCLAIMER: Please note the content within this blog/site is for informational, educational and entertainment purposes and should not be construed or perceived as professional or legal advice in respect of any of the subject matter. Any information you may rely on you do so at your own risk. The site owner/s will not be held responsible or liable for any damages from or related to your use of content, information and blog posts. The site owner/s take reasonable care to ensure that the information contained within this site is complete and correct but does not warrant this to be the case and accepts no liability for any errors, spelling mistakes or omissions. Any opinion or information in this site are put forth by the site owner/s on the basis of information obtained from sources believed to be reliable but not verified independently.