Granados Column: Farther down the rabbit hole we go

This is the second in a three-part series about Joshua Curtis' struggle with the law after being labeled a sex offender.

Last week I discussed the case of Joshua Curtis, a man who, when he was 18, slept with a 13-year-old, served his prison time for that charge and is now facing indefinite commitment to a mental institution -- what the state calls civil commitment.

True, after his initial offense Joshua made even more bad decisions, not least of which were going on the run from what he claims was a bogus indecent exposure charge and getting caught by police being drunk and rowdy in an abandoned farmhouse.

But the question is, do any of his crimes warrant indefinite civil commitment? The indecent exposure charges were dropped, he served his sentence for his escapade in the abandoned farmhouse, and his sex crime was non-violent -- and, as I said, he has served his time for that also. Problem is, changes in law have since labeled his sex crime violent, which is why he is now facing being locked up indefinitely and beyond his appointed sentence.

I originally learned about this situation when I received a letter from Cheryl Nugent, Joshua's mom. Cheryl had tried contacting Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli, Governor Bob McDonnell and the ACLU of Virginia, amongst others, in an effort to get help. None was forthcoming. Even journalists were ignoring her; I was the first to respond.

I also tried contacting the Virginia ACLU. They did not return my messages. I called Cuccinelli's office, mostly so I could get background on sex offender laws, and though I was told an interview would be worked out, nothing ever was. Additionally, I called the assistant attorney general on Joshua's case and was given no comment.

The one place where Cheryl was able to get some response and support was from the group Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL) of Virginia.

The woman who runs the organization, Mary Devoy, is familiar with the stigma that goes along with being a sex offender.

A few years ago her husband was arrested on the basis of an accusation from a 16-year-old neighbor who claimed he had touched her. According to Devoy, despite the fact that there was no evidence and her hus-band had never been alone with the girl, he was forced to accept a plea deal that put him on the sex of-fender list. To read the full story, go here: www.rsolvirginia.org/our_story.html

Devoy said that when Cheryl told her Joshua's story, she was surprised.

"I thought it must be a one-of-a-kind thing," she said.

She has since discovered others who are in situations similar to Joshua's.

The problem, Devoy said, is that originally there were only a select few sex crimes that were considered violent and that could warrant possible civil commitment. But over the years, Virginia has added to that list until it encompasses some crimes, like Joshua's, that wouldn't conventionally be considered violent.

"The public has been sold a bill of goods," she said. "But it's not the truth at all."

Meanwhile, Joshua sits in Piedmont Regional Jail with some actual violent sex offenders, waiting for a probable cause hearing that could ultimately lead to him being civilly committed by the state.

"It's pretty scary to me that they can do this, or try to do this," said Steven Novey, Joshua's attorney.

"If they're doing this now, why not someone with DUI's?" he said.

The problem with Joshua's situation is that the state is basically saying that it can stick Joshua in a mental institution, with no stated release date, because of possible crimes he might commit in the future. Perhaps with a repeat rapist or other (actual) violent sex offender, this might make some sense, but with Joshua, who has only one eight-year-old non-violent sex offense to his name, it is not so reasonable.

And the further question this line of thinking spawns is the one raised by Novey. Why not people with chronic DUI's? Or other repeat criminals? Surely one could surmise that they are likely to offend again. Doesn't that make them a danger to society, just like a sex offender? In the case of a person who continuously get DUI's, letting him or her out on the street, even after a prison sentence, could mean the inadvertent death of an innocent. We can't allow that, can we?

I say these things only to raise questions about the legitimacy of committing people to mental institutions because of a speculative future danger to society. Especially after they have served their sentence. That's not to say that some sex offenders might not warrant this punishment, but in the case of Joshua Curtis, we have to ask ourselves: Is he the perp we expect to see on Law & Order Special Victims Unit? I think not.

Return here next week for the conclusion of this series.

Alex Granados is the editorial page editor and reader representative for the News & Messenger.