On September 11, 1995, a young boy named Jimmy Ryce stepped off his school bus never to be heard from again. Months later, the missing boy's backpack was found on the property where the perpetrator worked. The perp, Juan Carlos Chavez, was convicted of Jimmy's murder September 12, 1998.
The death of the young boy led his parents to lobby politicians and elected officials to protect other children from falling victim to sexually violent predators like Juan Carlos Chavez. The Jimmy Ryce Act became law January 1, 1999. It was an obvious, emotional response to the murder of a young child at the hands of a sexual predator. While the Act was lauded at the time it was signed into law, the Act has proven controversial among judges, constitutional scholars, and civil rights activists because it poses questions about potential violations of Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution.
The Ex Post Facto argument states that a convict can't come under the Jimmy Ryce Act is that convict was convicted before the Act became law.
The other interesting and controversial aspect of the Jimmy Ryce Act is that it seeks to label these predators as mentally insane rather than as criminals. In dealing with sexual predators, there is no blanket proof that all sexual predators suffer from mental deficiencies.
Let's examine the details of the Act for a moment. The Act directs the Secretary for Children and Family Services to create a team that will determine if someone convicted of a sexual crime is indeed a sexually violent predator. 180 days prior to the convict's prison release, the team must start this process. According to the Act, a sexually violent predator is defined as "any person a)who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense; and b)suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment."
Once the committee makes their recommendations, the state attorney may file a petition with the court requesting the convict's commitment. Then the judge must determine if there is sufficient probable cause to warrant holding the convict until resolution of the commitment proceeding. If there is probable cause, the convict then must face what boils down to another trial to determine if he or she should be committed per the terms of the Act. The accused convict may request a jury trial and the jury must unanimously favor commitment. If that is not reached, the state attorney may request a new trial.
If that isn't Double Jeopardy, I don't know what is! I'm not soft on criminals, especially those who would prey on and harm our children. However, it's my duty as an officer of the court and a defender of the Constitution to ensure the rights of all of those who are accused of crimes, regardless of the heinous nature of the charges. Our entire judicial system hangs in the balance when rights are quashed or the state does not respect the Constitution. That's why the Jimmy Ryce Act is so controversial. In my years as a criminal defense attorney, I've worked on this issue and am knowledgable of its defects. I know the system and how it should work for those accused and the community at large.
Leave a comment