[00:00] Introduction: Welcome to Registry Matters. This is an independent production. Our opinions are our own. You make what we do here possible, and always remember, FYP. Recording live from FYP Studios, East and West, transmitting across the internet, this is episode 374 of Registry Matters.
[00:10] Larry : What’s up, Larry? How are you tonight?
[00:15] Larry: Doing awesome. Glad you invited me back this week.
[00:20] Andy: Is this my last week? It will be your last week if I can find someone else that’s willing to do the grunt work that you do, which doesn’t seem to be anybody. So you’ll probably be back next week, too.
[00:47] Larry : They’re not lining up to do work?
[00:50] Andy: They are probably lining up to not do the work and just participate, but they don’t want to do the work. That is really shocking to me. I mean, how many people have stepped up to help me edit? Not that we’ve ever asked, but like, hey, I’ll help you edit that if you want. No one has ever offered. Well, they don’t realize. They think it’s all magic. If all of a sudden you just hit the refresh button on your podcast app and the thing shows up, that kind of is magic. It is pretty magical what is happening. You know, we were talking, this is completely off script, but we were talking just the other day about deregulation from Reagan with the fair time thing. And then that created 24 hour news cycles. Prior to that, you and I would basically be watching the same news—ABC, CBS, NBC—we had a shared experience of what was going on in the world. Now everyone is in their own little bubble. However, with that own little bubble, we would never have been able to get a platform for our many thousands of listeners. We would never have been able to get a platform in that era. There would be no way for us to deliver anything to anybody.
[02:05] Larry : That’s absolutely correct. But that’s not anything to be commending with deregulation. I don’t think so. I think it’s the proliferation of technology. Deregulation caused the concentration of ownership in media, which wasn’t allowed previously. And it narrowed the focus of media because they grew. The radio and TV stations turned into these large conglomerates, and it all became pretty much focused on what upper management said on Wall Street.
[02:40] Andy: Very true. Well, make sure you press like subscribe, friend us, follow us, whatever you want to call it on all of the different podcast apps. I have redesigned the registry matters website. So go check it out. I think it looks pretty awesome. If I may say so myself. And yeah, all of that. So what are we doing tonight?
[03:03] Larry : Well, I did a lot of thoughtful contemplation. I had two things lined up for civil commitment last week. And I had a case about Florida that I thought I was going to do, but it turns out the case was already three years old. So it was a little bit stale.
[03:21] Andy: Did you happen to challenge the person on why they sent you a three-year-old case?
[03:26] Larry : No, but I think it was because we were trying to prove a point that no one gets prosecuted for the imaginary boogeyman. If you overstay your limitation by an hour or two in Florida, which has some of the strictest rules for registering for out-of-state visits, people don’t get prosecuted for that. And I try to explain logically why you don’t get prosecuted for that, but it’s futile because people believe they will be. Recently, someone told me they were almost prosecuted, but when I asked for details, I didn’t get any.
[04:04] Andy: So that would be like attempted prosecution, as opposed to attempted murder or kidnapping, anything like that.
[04:11] Larry : Indeed. Well, the biggest thing that keeps you from being prosecuted, the two biggest things is A, they don’t know you’re there unless you encounter law enforcement. But suppose you tell them you were there. Well, they wouldn’t know who you are, but if you just don’t tell them, they don’t know you’re there. Beyond that, they run the risk of you being stuck there and I know it breaks people’s hearts to understand this, but if I’m a prosecutor in Broward County, Florida, and I have to get elected by my constituents in Broward County, and I’ve got a PFR from Montgomery, Alabama that stayed 49 hours, I’ll lock that person up and they’re not able to make bond.
[06:22] Larry : But beyond that, they run the risk of you being stuck there. I’ve got a PFR from Montgomery, Alabama that stayed 49 hours, and I’ll lock that person up and they’re not able to make bond.
[06:50] Larry : 49 hours and I’ve got a PFR from, uh, Montgomery, Alabama that stayed 49 hours
[06:52] Larry : and I’ve got a PFR from, uh several years in Illinois about their civil commitment program and also we’re going to respond to a listener comment on last week’s episode and that should just about wrap it up, don’t you think?
[07:12] Andy: Uh
[07:13] Larry : Yeah,
[07:15] Andy: did you actually receive some hate mail from last week’s episode?
[07:16] Larry : Well, I did receive a phone call. It wasn’t really hate mail, telling me that I’m crazy. Yeah, so isn’t
[07:25] Andy: That actually had nothing to do with the case we discussed. You’re crazy, regardless of the case we discussed. So yeah,
[07:32] Larry : I was called Mr. Doom and Gloom and I was accused of being on the wrong side of the fight now.
[07:40] Andy: That’s pretty funny, actually. Explain why you felt and still feel this case was unnecessary and overly risky. Sure, the reason why?
[07:49] Larry : It was unnecessary because the regulations that the AG had published were finalized at the end of the Trump administration. When Biden came into office, he put those regulations on hold for further review since they hadn’t taken effect and hadn’t completed the requisite process. Then, the Justice Department and Attorney General Garland’s staff reviewed them and said they looked good. They finalized and published those regulations. But here’s the issue: these are just regulations, not law. And while the government would like to believe it is the law, unfortunately, it isn’t.
What really got me was that there was no threat of prosecution for anyone who had been discharged from registration. When I say “discharged,” this refers to a California-originated case where people granted removal by court order are discharged from registration. Nobody in California had been threatened with prosecution. In the remaining 56 states, nobody has been either. There have not been any prosecutions threatened since the case was filed in 2022.
In those 56 states, many do have removal processes or simply time off the registration obligation. No one had been threatened with prosecution by prosecutorial entities like the U.S. Department of Justice or a U.S. Assistant U.S. Attorney. Nobody suggested they would prosecute anyone. So an injunction was issued in 2022 to prevent something from happening that wasn’t on the horizon.
How do I know it wasn’t going to happen? Because if I were the U.S. government, I would have started prosecuting left and right in those other states. They didn’t. That tells me there was no credible threat of prosecution. So there was a non-existent problem being addressed with an injunction.
There’s also a political risk that the people who did this didn’t take into account. With this published opinion from a U.S. District Court judge in California, it could be taken up to the Ninth Circuit. The victim’s advocate apparatus has access to this public document and can use it as leverage on the California Assembly. They might say, “Look, folks, this state is so lenient on sex offenders that they allow thousands of people to fall through the cracks.” If my fears come true, there will be enormous pressure on the California Assembly to change the law to make it easier to get these people back into registration status.
[12:28] Larry : Well, I can’t be certain that they did not take those calculations into account when they filed it. But I can say this with certainty: very few people have the political skills to analyze what’s likely to happen two or three steps down the road. Lawyers generally focus on winning cases, and some lawyers are about winning cases that don’t need to be won because it gives them notoriety and keeps their name out there. Whether they considered these risks or not, I don’t know. But if you consider it seriously, you would tell people this is a risk too great to take because we may create the very problem we’re trying to solve. We’re solving a non-existent problem, and we might end up creating a law that says you have to register. Wouldn’t that be funny?
[13:14] Andy: No, not funny. Because I’m off the registry and it would be really annoying to me if someone came and said, you got to register. That would be really annoying.
[13:26] Larry : Well, that was my concern about this case. And I expressed it as best I could. And I didn’t really have direct communication with the planning and execution of this lawsuit. They won a very narrow victory. They got shot down on 75% of their claims. So that should tell you if they had carefully analyzed the merits and strength of those claims. If you get knocked out on three-fourths of your claims, that tells me as an uneducated person that you didn’t do a very good analysis. Most things, other than baseball, if you’re only right about it one-quarter of the time, you don’t make much money. Yeah, except in baseball. That’s correct.
[14:14] Andy: In baseball, if they get it right about one-third of the time, they get paid monster amounts of money.
[14:19] Larry : Yeah, if you can hit 270 to 300 in baseball, getting a hit 25 to 30% of the time is pretty good.
[14:28] Andy: That is very true. Interesting. Well, I mean, the person did say something about you being doom and gloom, right? So that’s how… That’s how you got that title. But I don’t think I deserve it. I think I’m the most optimistic person alive. Seriously?
[14:45] Larry : You can’t be serious. I think there’s some truth to that label though, isn’t there?
[14:50] Andy: Would this be the Looney Tunes? Is this the… Which one is this? The laugh? Yeah. I’m done with that.
[14:57] Larry : You can’t be serious. I think there’s some truth to that label though, isn’t there?
[15:03] Andy: So I can make you laugh, can’t I? On a very rare occasion, when the moon and the planets are in alignment and whatnot.
[15:05] Andy: All right. Well, then in this case, it’s about civil commitment. It was just decided, like, wow, that’s just two weeks ago, on March 30th, and the name is Jacob Kalal? Is that what you think that is? I think so. Okay. So Jacob Kalal and George Needs versus Salvador Godinez et al. Now, is this going to be a win for our side?
[15:33] Larry : Yes, to a degree.
[15:37] Andy: You always have to set aside some reservations about it. It can’t just be yes, but no, you’re like eh, kind of. All right. Well, I’m going to set this up. The plaintiffs are civil detainees, which I’m assuming are people that are in civil commitment, classified as sexually dangerous persons. SDP, that’s not an acronym we know of. So these are SVPs, probably?
[16:00] Larry : No, they have two different tracks in Illinois. These are SDPs.
[16:04] Andy: Oh, so these are even different people. All right. Well, then this is under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, so SDPA. The act permits the state to involuntarily commit and indefinitely confine individuals who have not been convicted of a crime, but who have been determined likely to commit acts of sexual violence in the future.
[16:30] Larry : That means that we lock people away for what they might do.
[16:34] Andy: So I swear, Larry, so I’ve been like toying with this idea of doing this movie night with Larry about legal stuff, and one of the things that we have to watch is Minority Report, and this is exactly what this is. It’s about thought crime, and they have these characters that are pre-cogs, and they predict that someone’s going to commit a crime, and the police go out there and they arrest people before they’ve committed the crime. That’s what this is. I don’t see any problem with it.
[16:50] Andy: Okay, then. All right. So as you said in the opening, this case has been going on for years. Following a bench trial, the district court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court also issued a permanent injunction requiring defendants to provide plaintiffs at least seven and a half hours of core group therapy per week, with each session lasting no less than 90 minutes; number two, to reinstate all inactive offense-specific and didactic groups that were currently suspended; and three, requiring the use of independent evaluators other than Wexford Health for performing discharge evaluations. The defendants appealed. It would have gone to the Seventh Circuit, however, but what did they do?
[17:52] Larry : They appealed, of course, and on appeal, the Seventh Circuit noted that by providing inadequate treatment and as a result depriving detainees of a realistic possibility of release, Illinois has failed to uphold its end of the balance. The case from the Seventh Circuit is cited as Howell v. Hughes, 74 F.4th at 849-859, decided in 2023. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the injunction was overbroad and remanded the case back for the district court to craft a new injunction consistent with the PLRA, which is the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
[18:46] Andy: But then on remand, the parties supplemented the record as directed by the court. After reviewing the supplemental documentation, the court held an evidentiary hearing on August 25th of 2025 to further clarify and develop the record. Now, I’ve heard you talk about future forecasting about the need for a fully developed record.
[19:11] Larry : You’ve heard me do that for years, Don. This is an example of why I encourage that the record be fully developed at the trial court level. You don’t get bogged down by having to have the case come back and years of delay, and you get a more accurate, timely resolution if you do the record properly up front.
[19:34] Andy: All right. Well, then, Jacob Kalal and George Needs are civilly committed to the Big Muddy River Correctional Center Sexually Dangerous Persons Program. That is a mouthful, Larry. Plaintiff Needs, and this guy is literally named Needs, okay? So it sounds like I’m saying he needs, but his name is Needs. So Plaintiff Needs was first committed in 1981. He has been housed at Big Muddy since 1995.
[20:00] Andy: Plaintiff Kalal was first committed in 2001 and has been housed at Big Muddy since his commitment. Did you say that Jacob Kalal has been committed since 1981? I did. And so that’s what, 43 years or 44 years?
[20:15] Andy: 45 years even. And that’s based on what he might do. That’s based on what he might do, as in hmm, we think that you might be… So wait, if he’s been there for that long, like if he was convicted when he was 20, if he was put away… If he was put away when he was 20, he’s in his 60s. Like what’s the dude going to do? He’s probably 70 or 80 years old.
[20:39] Larry : Well, that’ll come up later. But yeah, it is a strange case. And I’m embellishing this just a little bit. These people, it’s not for what they might do. We’ll explain it in a little more detail, but it’s because they have been apprehended for a PFR type offense.
[20:59] Larry : Sure, that’s how they got on the radar. And then they evaluate them as being dangerous. And then, oh, you’re sent. The sentence is over. By the way, we’re sending you across the street. They do
[21:06] Larry : This before. This person has been committed before they’re convicted. So it’s a different track.
[21:15] Andy: Okay, well, according to the court, an estimated 5,400 individuals are civilly committed under state and federal sex offender programs across the country. Illinois has enacted two sexual commitment statutes: The Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, which is what we’ve been talking about… And then the Sexually Violent Persons Act, known as SVPA. Individuals committed under SVPA have been criminally convicted and are treated at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center, operated by the Illinois Department of Human Services. Those committed under SDPA have not been convicted of a PFR type offense and are held at Big Muddy, which is operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections.
[22:00] Larry : Yes, they do have a unique system in Illinois for sure. This is something I’ve never seen before.
[22:09] Andy: But let’s go in and examine the SDPA. Tell us how that works.
[22:13] Larry : Well, the SDPA is on the front end. When any person is charged with a criminal offense and it shall appear to the prosecutor that such a person is a sexually dangerous person within the meaning of this particular act, then the prosecutor may file with the clerk of the court in the same proceeding where the person is charged. The court is charged with considering that criminal offense, a petition setting forth the facts tending to show that the person named is a sexually dangerous person.
[22:44] Andy: Now, this means they might get treatment prior to a conviction? Theoretically, I think that’s what it means, yes. Can you help us out with some legal terms and what is the legal definition of an SDP?
[22:57] Larry : According to the Illinois statute, a sexually dangerous person is defined as a person suffering from a mental disorder for at least a year, coupled with criminal propensities toward the commission of sex offenses, and who have demonstrated propensities toward acts of sexual assault or acts of sexual molestation of children. That’s under Illinois 725 ILCS 205/1.01. That’s a mouthful.
[23:28] Andy: is also a mouthful. What rights does a person have in SDP proceedings?
[23:35] Larry : The individual has a right to an attorney and a jury trial. If the individual is found beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a good standard, to be an SDP, they are placed in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, and the Director of Corrections is required to provide for care and treatment of the committed individual designated to effect recovery. The treatment must conform with the standards promulgated by the Sex Offender Management Board Act and conducted by a licensed treatment provider under the Sex Offender Evaluation and Treatment Provider Act.
[24:10] Larry: Are you a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Larry and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there, too. Subscribing also encourages others to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say F-Y-P.
[25:01] Andy: An SDP may petition the committing court in writing to be released. Now, once an SDP petitions for release, he or she is evaluated by an evaluator licensed under the Illinois Sex Offender Evaluation and Treatment Provider Act. Those recovery evaluations are performed by employees of Wexford Health Sources Incorporated. Now, what is the legal standard to continue holding the person?
[25:27] Larry : To continue the commitment, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence, which is a good standard. No additional application may be filed for two years after a finding that the person remains sexually dangerous or after the application is withdrawn unless special circumstances are met. So if you file it and get second thoughts, you’re screwed. And if you file it and lose, you’re screwed for two years. But other than that, on paper, this looks like a pretty good system.
[26:08] Andy: Unless you’re one of the ones on the inside, I suppose. So, but if the state does not meet the burden of proof, what happens next?
[26:17] Larry : Well, in that event, the committing court is required to discharge the SDP if after hearing he or she is found to be no longer dangerous. If the court concludes the person appears no longer to be dangerous but impossible to track, it can enter an order of conditional or supervised release. So you can see the logic here: when you’re functioning in an institution, you’re not making a lot of your own decisions.
[26:50] Larry: So the fact that you could
[26:51] Larry : show up for group counseling and the fact that you can behave yourself when you have something that’s going to knock you in the head if you don’t, it’s hard for us to know for certain or with any certainty that you’re going to be able to do that without the supervision and structure. So therefore, the conditional supervised release is an appropriate mechanism because otherwise the judges would just err on the side of holding everybody in custody. So I like that part of it.
[27:17] Andy: Well, on page five, the judge stated individual therapy is not provided through the SDPP. The program utilizes cognitive behavioral therapy based on the risk needs responsivity model and the Illinois sex offender management program. It abhors guidelines and offers three categories of therapy: primary core group therapy, offense-specific group therapy, and didactic, which is psychoeducational group therapy. An SDP may be in a general group, one or more sex-offense specific groups, and one or more didactic groups. Now,
[27:55] Larry : come again, what does “didactic” mean for a person who dropped out of high school?
[27:59] Andy: It’s like self-teaching, I guess you could say. Didactic means intended to teach or instruct, often in a moral or educational way. I’ve always heard the term like an autodidact, which is a person that learns on their own. They study books and exercises, then they learn stuff on their own.
[28:17] Larry : Well, you know, it’s always been my position that these treatment programs are not really designed to treat the offender. And the judge noted that primary therapy groups are process-oriented groups focused on gaining insight into offense-related behaviors and dynamic relationships. Risk factors. SDPs and primary therapy groups present assignments including life history, case report, offense cycles, and release recovery plans. Primary therapy groups meet once or twice a week for 90 minutes per session. Four therapists run group therapy while the newest therapists are in orientation. Isn’t that sweet?
[28:56] Andy: I noticed that the judge stated at the time of trial, group therapy sessions were canceled at a rate as high as 38%. Canceled groups were rarely rescheduled. The cancellation of group therapy sessions continued into 2025, with sessions frequently canceled due to low staff availability.
[29:19] Larry : Now, I think we’re funny. We can admit that it’s funny. Over one-third of all sessions were canceled.
[29:26] Andy: And I’m assuming you need those sessions to help build a case, build like a docket, so to speak, that you are moving along and recovering. If the sessions aren’t rescheduled, then you have missing evidence, dragging things out even longer. So, no, that’s not funny; it’s only funny in the mind of someone deranged like you. I think it’s hilarious. Yeah, that makes you the deranged individual, Larry. Let’s move on to the most important aspect of the case: an SDP is supposed to receive treatment. Did the trial reveal how much treatment each plaintiff received? It did. Did you read this case? Very thoroughly. What were you doing when you read it? Today was a grass-cutting day, so I was out there cutting the grass.
[30:22] Larry : Between May 2024 and May 2021, plaintiffs were offered an average of 2.18 hours of primary group therapy per week, while another plaintiff received an average of 1.95 hours per week. Sarah Brown-Foyles is how you pronounce her name. Works for me. She’s the Illinois Department of Corrections manager for sex offense services. She testified that in the last 12 months, one of the primary therapists was on maternity leave for three months, and other therapists were unavailable to cover groups, resulting in cancellations. Sarah Brown-Foyles couldn’t provide information about how many counseling sessions were rescheduled. Now, imagine that. They wouldn’t be able to provide that. That’s funny for sure. Yeah.
[31:16] Andy: You mentioned that an SDP can file a petition to be discharged. Do you have any idea how that works?
[31:23] Larry : Yes. When an SDP petitions the court for a recovery evaluation, as it’s called, the evaluation is conducted by Wexford Health. Wexford Health sources evaluators who are under contract with the Illinois Department of Corrections. At the time of trial, the evaluators were Dr. Melissa Weldon-Pedera and Dr. Christopher Clonch, I think. The purpose of the Wexford evaluation is to analyze the current and future risks the SDP poses and to ultimately make a recommendation for or against discharge or to make a recommendation for conditional release from the program.
[32:05] Andy: Honestly, that sounds kind of strange. Wexford is not actually providing the treatment, so how do they evaluate the individual? How do they review the person’s case and provide recommendations?
[32:19] Larry : That’s a good question. The evaluators would rely on documentation from the SDP’s file, including their progress in therapy, any assessments conducted by other professionals involved with the SDP, and any relevant court documents or reports. They also conduct interviews with the SDP to assess current risk factors and behaviors.
[32:15] Larry : Wexford evaluators base their evaluation and recommendation on the treatment file maintained by the SDPP. Now, remember, this is the treatment that all got canceled at a rate of 38%.
[32:24] Andy: Right.
[32:25] Larry : Including the semi-annual assessments, treatment plans, and case notes created by the primary therapist. And a brief consultation with the SDP’s primary therapist and occasionally an interview with the SDP.
[32:38] Andy: Did you intentionally use the word occasionally just now? So they occasionally interview the SDP?
[32:45] Larry : I did, and that’s funny, but
[32:47] Andy: I won’t even bother asking you to agree. That’s also wise. And thank you for not asking, because it’s not really all that funny. So on page nine, the judge stated between 2011 and 2018, 22 SDPs were released, discharged or recommended for release, or discharged by an evaluator. Since October 2018, 45 SDPs have been released, discharged, or recommended for release or discharge. Five have only been discharged. 31 have been released and remain in the community. Four have been discharged but violated conditional release and returned to Big Money. And five have been recommended for release but remain at Big Money. Why are those five that have been recommended for release still there?
[33:35] Larry : I didn’t see it in the case document, but I’m assuming it’s because they have not been able to put together a satisfactory conditional release plan that would include stable housing and employment. So they are released, but they don’t necessarily
[33:47] Andy: have an address yet.
[33:51] Larry : For you? Yes, I don’t have any electricity.
[33:54] Andy: Ruh-roh, what do you want to do then? It’s coming back up. So all we can do is pause and let the thing reboot. Okay. Very well. And I’m having storms here and I thought I was going to run out of power. All right. We’re back in business. All you got to do is do a little chop out there for that brief disruption. Oh, I thought you would have to like, the whole computer came back on already or just doesn’t make any sense. I think we’re on backup power. Okay. That’s good. All right. So why are those five that have been recommended for release still there?
[34:31] Larry : I don’t really have any idea, but I’m assuming that it has to do with the fact that they have not been able, most of them based on the data, to get conditional release rather than fully released. And they probably haven’t been able to put together a release plan that satisfies the conditions that the court wants to see. So that’s probably why they’re still sitting there.
[34:50] Andy: Got it. All right. Well then Dr. Dean R. Cauley testified as an expert. Dr. Cauley received a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Michigan, a master’s degree in mental health counseling from Oakland University, an MBA from Ludger College of Business, and a PhD in mental health counseling with a focus on criminal justice from Wayne State University. He has been in private practice since 2003 and has provided expert opinions and analysis in civil commitment cases in state and federal courts. What did Dr. Cauley opine about treatment at Big Money?
[35:26] Larry : Dr. Cauley offered the following opinions at trial. The SDP falls far below generally accepted standards in the field of civilly committed sex offender treatment with respect to the amount of therapy offered and group sizes. The inherent flaws in the SDPP result in treatment that is slow, repetitive, and not catered to the mission of treating the men and returning them to the community as quickly as possible. In reaching his conclusions, Dr. Cauley relied on generally accepted practices of inpatient sex offender treatment and the SDPs, as determined through a network called the Sex Offender Civil Commitment Program Network, or SOCCPN.
[36:18] Larry : He did, and with respect to Wexford Recovery Release Evaluations, Dr. Cauley offered the following opinions. Quote, Tests were presented as having considerable predictive validity when they actually have very little. Can you imagine that? Indicators of risk were underscored as predicting future sexual violence when these items have shown minimal research outcomes as being predictive. Important topics such as age or the passage of time were not given any attention in the evaluations. The Wexford evaluations are based largely on past acts to assess the current condition of the SDP. Dr. Cauley noted that both sexual recidivism and antisocial traits decline beginning at age 40, and rapidly after age 60. And the Wexford evaluations do not adhere to generally accepted practice or evidence-based decision-making. Now, that’s coming from someone who has apparently been granted expert classification by the court and seems to have a strong background. He’s saying this about the Illinois program.
[37:38] Andy: Well, the one thing that I will challenge there at the end, Larry, is it says evidence-based and we are not a nation of evidence-based decision-making. That I know for sure. But then according to the trial judge, the 14th amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In the context of civil commitment, due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed. And that’s citing Kansas versus Hendricks 521 U.S. 346 through 356 from 1997.
[38:15] Larry : That’s from the United States Supreme Court. I see. And the judge went on to say, if the object or purpose of the state law is to provide treatment, but the treatment provisions were adopted as a sham or mere pretext, there would be an indication of the forbidden purpose to punish. You can tell that this judge has been listening to registry matters, correct?
[38:39] Andy: Yes, of course.
[38:40] Larry : And then he went on to say, if civil commitment were to become a mechanism for retribution or general deterrence, Supreme Court precedents would not suffice to validate it. Hendricks says treatment is required. Thus, the 14th Amendment mandates that civil detainees receive treatment for their condition. If civil commitment were to become a mechanism for retribution and people are released when they’ve improved enough to no longer be dangerous, then folks, civil commitment is not unconstitutional. Get that through your head. But if you don’t treat people with the intent of releasing them, you’re violating the Constitution by merely warehousing them. You can commit people, but you must try to rehab them and get them out of there.
[39:24] Andy: And then I read several pages of the judge’s conclusion of law. Can you reduce those pages down to a concise finding for our audience? Also, dumb it down for me so that I can understand it.
[39:37] Larry : Well, that was quite a long litany of conclusions, but what he has done is set this case up to go back up to the Seventh Circuit and he wants them to basically rubber stamp what he’s done. The judge stated with respect to the claims asserted in counts one and two, the court concludes that the defendants continue to fail in their obligation to provide plaintiffs with statutorily required rehabilitative treatment. Consequently, the SDPP as currently structured and implemented fails to meet generally accepted professional standards and violates plaintiffs’ right to due process as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. That’s the most important thing the judge said.
[40:23] Andy: Now, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs Jacob Kalal and George Needs’ request for a permanent injunction with respect to the claims asserted in counts one and two is granted. That’s pretty good news, I think.
[41:40] Larry : You explain that, please. Well, what’s going to happen here is very similar to what happened in Doe versus Snyder over the last two years. And I think it’s going to be very similar to what happened in that case. The state’s going to claim they don’t have any money, and some of the things I didn’t mention is how they cried about staffing shortages—they can’t hire anybody. You remember Illinois is a government blue state, and they know how to do everything perfectly and they care so much about people in Illinois, but they can’t staff their facilities. So what’s going to happen is that they’re going to cry the blues saying that they don’t have the wherewithal to provide five hours of treatment. The judge is going to be in a real conundrum because this judge is going to be faced with making a decision like the judge in Doe versus Snyder finally had to do: there was a date certain that the registry was going to go dark. Remember, he allowed a period of time for legislators to legislate. People said he ordered my son no—he didn’t order it; he allowed them time. I said they have no reason to legislate because nothing is bothering them—the status quo is just fine. So when a date is announced that the registry was going to go dark, magically, legislation happens. That’s exactly what’s going to happen here. There are a lot of things that need funding in Illinois and every state government needs to fund, but locking up PFRS is not something you can campaign on. I’ll tell you what—I’ll send me to the state capital, and I will make sure we get as much treatment for sex offenders as we can get. And we’re going to take that money out of the college university system of the state; we’re going to take it out of K-12 education; we’re going to take it out of whatever, and we’re going to take care of these sex offenders. That’s not a good platform to run on, so they’re going to do absolutely nothing when the status order comes in 60 days. The status report is going to be filled with reasons why they can’t do anything and the struggles they’re up against. And the judge is going to be boxed into a corner: Is he going to give them a date certain to let people out if they don’t meet these requirements, or is the status quo going to continue? It’s going to be quite interesting.
[43:52] Andy: If they were to prioritize who has had the most treatment and is the most likely to succeed, they could whittle down the number of people in civil commitment to the point where they could have five hours of group therapy per week. You’re absolutely correct.
[44:14] Larry : They could do that if they were willing to prioritize those who have had the most treatment and are the most likely to succeed. We played a similar game here in Bernalillo County with jail overcrowding a couple of decades ago. I was minimally involved, just talking to the legal team, but what you have to do is force their hands. The judge has to be willing since this is a federal judge appointed by life. The judge will have to say, “Well, if y’all can’t come up with a way to get your population down, then I’m going to create a matrix.” You would start with people who’ve been there 20, 30, 40, or 50 years and use the most reliable data we have. Age is a big predictor of future offending, so you’d set up a matrix and just start releasing people in that order. The state might not object because they could point fingers at the lifetime liberal Obama-appointed judge who did this. They won’t have to raise any taxes or reallocate funds if it’s the court’s decision. But that’s what it’s going to take to get anything to change. The judge is going to have to start releasing people. I’ll be shocked if they actually appropriate money and do anything proactive themselves.
[45:33] Andy: And just from my very limited experience, this doesn’t even happen. They’re not going to let the time expire and open up the front door and let people out. Nope, not going to happen.
[45:45] Larry : Yeah, lovely.
[45:46] Andy: So does this then mean this was just a waste of time?
[45:51] Larry : No, no, it’s eventually. If it’s a judge that means business, eventually people will start getting released, but it’s not going to be quick.
[45:59] Andy: Right. So shall we refer back to Mr. Doom and Gloom? Yeah, but I do have a
[46:06] Larry : It’s funny when you get ready for it.
[46:12] Larry : Okay, so I was trying to do the prep for the show and I didn’t get it done this week because the old PC is getting really slow and I need some help to speed it up again. And the Mac operates slightly differently. Last week, I didn’t save the Word document when I dropped it into the Google Doc. I figured if I wanted a Word document later, I would just copy everything and make one for the permanent archive. Well, when I opened episode 374, I was confused which one I was working on and deleted everything that was in there from episode 373. So now episode 373 is empty and I don’t have a Word document for it. If we ever want to create that script, we would have to do it from the transcript.
[47:08] Andy: I understand. I like how you said the Mac is slightly different. That’s funny. Well, it is slightly different. Slightly is being very generous.
[47:19] Larry : Well, I’m going to have to have you remote in next week and see if we can speed this ancient PC up because otherwise I need to get a new one.
[47:27] Andy: We can see what we can do. Well, head over to registrymatters.co and you can find show notes and links to everything that you need to find, links to get to Patreon, which will come up here in just a moment, links over to the transcripts and to FYP Education. You can send email at registrymatterscast at gmail.com. And you can certainly leave an old-fashioned voicemail message that I will send promptly over to Larry because he loves the telephone, 747-227-4477. And of course, please support us on Patreon at patreon.com slash registrymatters. And that’s all I got, sir. Oh, also make sure you go buy merch over at FYP Education slash shop. That’s all I got. Well, I look forward to seeing you in another episode. Very well. Have a great night, Larry. And I will talk to you soon. Seven in the morning. Good night. You’ve been listening to
[48:29] Larry : FYP.
[48:30] Andy: We can see what we can do. Well, head over to registrymatters.co and you can find show notes and links to everything that you need to find, links to get to Patreon, which will come up here in just a moment, links over to the transcripts and to FYP Education. You can send email at registrymatterscast at gmail.com. And you can certainly leave an old-fashioned voicemail message that I will send promptly over to Larry because he loves the telephone, 747-227-4477. And of course, please support us on Patreon at patreon.com slash registrymatters. And that’s all I got, sir. Oh, also make sure you go buy merch over at FYP Education slash shop. That’s all I got. Well, I look forward to seeing you in another episode. Very well. Have a great night, Larry. And I will talk to you soon. Seven in the morning. Good night. You’ve been listening to