From today's New York Post

ALBANY — Here's the first look ( photo accompanied the article) at one of the sexual predators considered so dangerous that Gov. Pataki last month locked him up indefinitely, even though his prison term has ended.

Fiendish sex criminal Joseph Hoppe wants out, and is part of a legal challenge by 12 convicted sex offenders who are being held in city psychiatric centers after serving their prison terms. Their case is to be heard today in state Supreme Court in Manhattan.

"This is a life sentence," Hoppe told The Post by phone from his mental-hospital ward. "They're adding on to our time illegally . . . It's all secret activity."

The Pataki administration has refused to release the names of those being civilly confined and Hoppe's is the first to be made public.

Hoppe, 53, is a remorseless career criminal who was sentenced to up to 12 years in prison in 1995 after pleading guilty to a sexual-abuse charge. He was accused in 1994 of a horrendous crime — snatching a 21-year-old stranger off the street, tying her up, throwing her down an embankment, and savagely sexually assaulting her along a riverbank in Binghamton.

"This was a bad crime by a bad defendant," said Broome County District Attorney Gerald Mollen, whose office prosecuted Hoppe.

Mollen called Hoppe a dangerous man when he was on the streets, saying, "Our viewpoint was he was a high-risk sex offender."

Court papers filed last year also reveal there is evidence that, as a teenager, Hoppe "acted out in a sexual manner toward his sister" —a charge the sister now denies.

Just before Hoppe's scheduled release last month, Pataki — frustrated that the Democrat-controlled Assembly refused to act on a bill allowing for the civil confinement of sex offenders who finish their prison sentences — ordered his aides to find another way to do it.

Pataki decided to apply the state's existing law allowing for the involuntary indefinite commitment of the mentally ill.

Hoppe said that as he was preparing to be released from prison, he had to meet twice with representatives of the state Office of Mental Health. They told him after the second meeting that he would be shipped to a mental hospital for "further evaluation" because they couldn't decide whether he posed a threat to himself or others.

"It was all done secretly with no judges or anything," Hoppe said.

He was transported from an upstate prison to Manhattan Psychiatric Center before later being moved with six other sex offenders to a nearby maximum-security mental hospital after fears they were going to riot.

Hoppe, who spends his days meeting with doctors and attending programs designed for sexual offenders, argues he is not a threat, saying he was not busted for rape or for having sex with children.

"There are some guys who need this," Hoppe said of psychiatric help. "They're whacked out of their mind. But I've seen worse people who are out and on parole, and they're still out on the streets."

--------------------

I don't think I have to tell anyone what my opinion is.

--The man served his time and he should now be freed. If there's a problem, the problem lies in sentences which may be too lenient

--He was not judged mentally ill at the time of his conviction, and with his term up should not be obligated to submit to any mental health examinations by state officials.

--What is it about "sex crimes" that gets everyone all stirred up? Is he any worse than a bank robber or a murderer? They get released all the time when their sentences are up. Murderers are certainly seriously disturbed, if not mentally ill.

--It's the slippery slope again. If we can confine criminals convicted of sexual crimes past their sentence on the grounds that they are mentally ill, what's next? What's the point of sentencing in the first place?

I agree.

I agree that if he served his sentence, he should be freed. However, I think most experts will agree that, at least most of the time, these people are not cured, and go on to commit the same offenses after their release.

I don't claim to have the answers, but know that I wouldn't feel comfortable with a sex offender living in my area. I know it's not fair to the person who may be "reformed", but with the statistics as they are, how can anyone ever feel truly comfortable, especially with child sex offenders.

To answer your question PLaw in regards to why it is that "sex" crimes seem to be more offensive than murder and other horrible crimes, and not to minimize murder and such, I think it's because sex crimes are so personal (for lack of a better word) in nature, and such an emotional violation for the victim, that many times leaves more inner (that last a lifetime) scars than if one were shot at and survived.

TIS

I braodly agree with what has been posted. If his offences were deemed to be worthy of a 12 year sentence, then it follows that after 12 years he should be released. The problem here as plaw states is that as a repeat sex offender he should have been sentenced to 25-30 years...but he wasn't.

I find the use of Mental Health legislation to keep him incarcerated to be worrying.

Quote:

Originally posted by plawrence:

I don't think I have to tell anyone what my opinion is.

Well....let him out and let him moove in next door to your daughter. Then we'll see if your opinion changes.

Putting all personal opinions and feelings aside in regards to someone who is a murderer or a sex offender, I have to agree with you here Plaw.

Just the fact alone that he was NEVER judged mentally ill at the time of his conviction makes me wonder how he can now be held beyond his term.

What I would like to know is if something happened while he was serving his term that would render him mentally ill. Was he ever declared, or suspected of being mentally ill by a prison doctor while he was serving his sentence?

The problem lies within the laws and the sentencing itself. Harsher laws need to be implemented and longer sentences need to be imposed when someone like this is found guilty or confesses by his own will.

Another question that needs to be addressed is should a Governer, an elected representaive in government, have the right to make a decision like this? In my opinion it is very dangerous to give this kind of power to someone in Government.

Our elected officials should be fighting to have tougher laws passed, fighting to have harsher sentences implemented. IMO the courts and the judges should be the ones making decisions like this, not our elected representatives.


Don Cardi

This is a tough one. My gut tells me to lock this guy up, throw away the key, and I don't care what silly loophole you use to do it.

But of course you can't do that. It's wrong, wrong, wrong.

I think that, as has been stated here previously, we are in desperate need for an overhaul of our justice system. Is 12 years enough of a sentence for a criminal like this? I don't know the details of his case, so I can't say. However, I do know that sentences given to sex offenders are often ridiculously light. Also, there is very little hope of rehabilitation for them. If you think that the recidivism rate for other criminals is high, take a look at sex offender stats one day.

So, what is the answer? Maybe they do need to be locked in an institution forever, but we can't have the governor arbitrarily deciding who stays and who goes, and not even releasing the names of those he deems "dangerous". Slippery slope? More like an iceberg.

It wouldn't thrill me, of course, but I wouldn't want a criminal of any stripe living next door to me or my children, as obviously you wouldn't either.

But you can't have it both ways. This guy was mentally fit to stand trial. He was convicted and served his sentence. To say now, after the fact, that he is mentally ill and needs to stay incarcerated is wrong.

Your argument really should be for harsher sentencing, with which I would agree.

And Don cardi is 100% right when he sys

"Should a Governer, an elected representaive in government, have the right to make a decision like this? In my opinion it is very dangerous to give this kind of power to someone in Government. (I think you'd be in agreement with the ACLU on that one, DC :p )

Our elected officials should be fighting to have tougher laws passed, fighting to have harsher sentences implemented. IMO the courts and the judges should be the ones making decisions like this, not our elected representatives."

I agree that the problem is that is original sentence wasn't long enough. But honestly I have no problem if the scum bag has to stay past his sentence.

Would you have a problem with any criminal convicted for any reason to be incarcerated past his sentence, or just a sex offender?

And if not, why not?

If that's their stance on something like this, than yes I am.

What you don't want me to post is what kinds of laws and punishments I think should be implemented for these criminals vs. what the ACLU says. But that's another topic for another day.


Don Cardi

No, I'm all for harsh sentences.

Seems as though most crimes are committed by repeaters.

Any serious first time violent criminal, or repeat violent criminal.

So what's the point of sentencing then?

Person I feel sorry for is the victim. If this person gets let out if he does the crime again, and he gets put back in jail for the sake of all women don't let him out ever again.

Of course, the thing we haven't discussed is the rights of the victims. With this little loophole, the concern seems to be not only for the victims, but for future victims. Although, how can you punish someone for a crime that they may or may not commit?? I would think that this is treading on some very thin legal ice. Does anyone else think that perhaps Mr. Pataki is trying to get some headlines in anticipation of his run for the presidency??

I guess that is a chance the public will have to take if this man is let out.

That's the same chance we take when any criminal is released.

Pataki for President? God help us.....

That could actually make me find religion.

"What is it about "sex crimes" that gets everyone all stirred up?"

WOW. Talk to a few victims or victims families. Having the most precious innocent thing in your life beaten, raped, destroyed, in a way that they will spend the rest of their lives trying to understand what they did to deserve this. They might give you some insight into why people get "stirred up".

The answer in cases like this might be to sentence them to an undetermined amount of time. Until the state feels they are ready to be released. If that is never, so be it.

I respect this govenor for seeing a tradgedy waiting to happen and doing something about it. Wait until it is your daughter, your sister, your wife, your mother, then make jokes about the man who is trying to prevent it from happening again.

That could actually make me switch to the liberal party!


Don Cardi

I do also Marlon. His heart is definately in the right place. No question about it. I respect and admire him for having the morals and forsight to realize that this guy will, in all likelyhood, attack again.
As I said earlier, the laws need to be changed and the penalties for such crimes need to be extremely harsh.

But what's being questioned here is the right of a governer to decide to hold this person even though this person was never found mentally ill when his trial started and served out the prison term given to him under the law. Isn't the governer going above and beyond the law by doing that?

However the question that I originally asked still stands unanswered; Was this guy rendered or suspected of being mentally ill while he was STILL in prison serving his time? If that be the case then it puts a different perspective on this whole thing.

See, if the punishments were more severe than they are now, and something like life in prison was the penalty for committing certain crimes, then we wouldn't have these problems.

Personally I think that anyone who is proven beyond a reasonable doubt of sexually molesting someone, shouldn't ever be allowed to walk the earth again. But that's me.

The problems is in the law itself and what a judge is allowed to give as a sentence under the laws. The laws suck!


Don Cardi

Generally speaking, and having nothing to do with what the Governor is doing with this case now, People that commit outrageous crimes like this and are found guilty, need to be removed from society for good! This must happen from the get go. His victim was given a lifetime sentence by his disgusting act and all he got was 12 years.


Don Cardi

Preach on brother Cardi.

Like I said before I care more about the victim than this piece of crap who scared this woman for life.

That is an excellent way of looking at this problem. The offender should get punishment proportional to the damage to the victim. That is a good reason to deal with sexual crimes more severly than burglary or fraud. Murder being the worst crime, death to the murderer is good justice.

You are the second person to bring up the "What if your daughter was the victim?" argument.

Well, if it was my daughter, I would be tempted to go out and kill the guy myself, but

a) The state has to be held to a higher moral standard than an individual,
b) That argument is no different than that for the death penalty, which I am also against
c) We don't really know if this is a "tragedy waiting to happen or not",
d) We don't really know what Governor Pataki's motivation is here, and
e) Based on your argument, why should we ever release any criminals ever, given the high rates of recidivism?

I don't know you Marlon, and you don't know me, but suppose you are a Black American, and one of your children was beaten in a racially motivated attack?

Or suppose I was from India, and my son was attacked and beaten because he was dressed in the religious clothing of a Sikh?

It is, of course, a matter of degree, and neither crime is as bad as rape, but wouldn't there be lasting scars to the victims? And aren't the attackers just as sick, albeit in a different way than this guy, and likely to attack again?

But this is not the issue here, though.

The question is "Should the state, after a convicted criminal serves the sentence which was mandated by a court of law, have the right to keep anyone incarcerated for an additional amount of time?"

Now, let me turn the "What if your daughter was the victim?" argument around for you, Marlon.

What if your son was convicted of a crime, and after being imprisoned and serving his sentence, the state sought to keep him incarcerated beyond the time he was sentenced for?

Wouldn't you fight for his release? I know I would fight for mine.
As far as the Governor's motives are concerned, who knows for sure? I'd hardly say "no doubt about it." I, for one, never trusted the guy.

Is it likely that this guy will attack again? Probably. I have no statistics to back my opinion up, but I'd bet that a good, solid percentage of our prison population is comprised of people who aren't there for the first time.

But again.....Based on that argument, no criminal should ever be released.

Which brings us full circle here.

I don't think that every criminal deserves a life sentence for any crime, but there are certain crimes that, absent mitigating or extenuating circumstances, which deserve much longer sentences than those currently being handed out.

That's the answer. Not beginning a slide down the slippery slope by allowing the government to keep people incarcerated based on their "mental health".

Psychology and psychiatry, I believe, are both more of an "art" than a science, and you could get five different diagnoses from five different doctors.

Besides, what could be next? You could argue that people with extreme political views should be incarcerated too, based on their mental health.

I am not from New York and I know nothing about Pitaki. He may be the worst governor in history for all I know. I don't think anyone disagrees that this guy should have been given a longer sentence, but he wasn't. So Pitaki looked at the situation and decided to do something to protect the people of his state. That I admire.

If it was my son, I would be agonized beyond words I'm sure. Crimes always create 2 sets of victims. I would do everything I could to help him rebuild his life but if I thought there was a strong possibility that he would repeat such a crime I'd accept his fate.

As for as the legal issues, I don't know how they can get away with keeping the guy in. But what is the alternative? Open the door and say good luck girls, hope you're not next?

My suggestion is an undetermined sentence.` Fact is, there is no good answer to something like this so all you can do is try to change things for the future and make the best out of what you have in the present. Sounds to me that's what Pitaki is trying to do.

Where are ya, DJ?

Once again, like mostly everyone has said, this man should be free. It is unfair and unjust to try and make him serve any longer since he has already served the originaly sentence.

Where are ya, DJ? [/b][/quote]Pat, don't you agree that if the laws were more tougher and sentences more severe, that we wouldn't be having a problem of a Governer taking it upon himself to incarcerate a person for a longer period than was originally handed out to him? An elected official having this kind of ability scares me.

If judges did there jobs, and lawmakers pushed for tougher laws, then people like Pataki wouldn't be making these kinds of controversial decisions. The lowlifes would still be away!


Don Cardi

Yeh, I'm all for stricter sentences... depending on the background of the criminal. If he robs an old lady and it's his first offense, then should he be put away for 10 + years? Ofcourse not. Each case is different my friend.