Amen!

Could you tell us more about what it says? It looks like the story is removed?

This is the link for the article

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/federal-judge-rules-that-missouri-s-sexually-violent-predator-program/article_8ea46baa-5e3f-5773-a1d1-9465c9d08fe9.html

As I wrote in my email to Donna, while the federal judge ruled that the Missouri SORTS program itself IS constitutional, the judge ruled that they way it is being administered is NOT constitutional. The reason for this is because while Missouri state law predicates civil commitment for sex offenders on the basis that they will be given treatment so they can return to society one day, the fact is, state officials have not been giving them treatment.

Thus, since 1999, which is when the sex offender civil commitment opened, 88 men have been forced to live in confinement after serving their prison sentence, and only permitted to leave upon their death. Not one single person has been allowed to leave the program and return back to society.

Besides state officials violating every law that could be violated, it also exposes the fact that government officials knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and maliciously turn blind eyes when it is other government officials violating the law.

For example, every attorney working for the special unit in the state Attorney General's office that has prosecuted a civil commitment case argues that the person will be treated once civilly committed. However, when the case comes up for review, suddenly these same state attorneys proclaim that the person cannot be treated and therefore should not be releases.

This means that those involved on the state level are committing perjury by making false declarations to the court to keep someone civilly committed by concealing the fact these same state officials have been denying those civilly committed treatment that is required by state law, constitutional laws, and under the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that authorize civil commitment when it is for treatment purposes.

I wrote about these things in my 2011 report to state government officials. Of course they ignored such and no surprise there because the underlining issue is the prejudice government has for people with mental illness and their never ending quest to ensure they are lock away for their life in one institution after another.

Sadly, while the conduct of these state officials is or is tantamount to having murdered the 88 men that died in captivity while civilly committed not one of these state officials is going to face criminal prosecution because those in government protect their own, and those in society simply do not care about these people and what happens to them, until they are somehow personally affected by such themselves - then they care but by then it is too late for them.