Granados Column: The last word on the strange case of Joshua Curtis

This is the final column in a three-part series.

For the past two weeks, I have told you the story of Joshua Curtis. That story is done. Here are the facts.

n Joshua Curtis was convicted and served prison time for having consensual sex with a 13-year-old when he was 18.

n Joshua Curtis got out of prison, married and had a kid.

n At some point after getting out Joshua Curtis was charged with indecent exposure.

n Joshua Curtis said the accusation was false, but fearing that he would go back to prison, he went on the run from the law.

n While on the run, he got drunk with friends in an abandoned farmhouse and was busted by the police, thus ending his time on the run.

n The indecent exposure charges were dropped, however, Josh was incarcerated for violating probation on his original sex offense and for non-violent crimes associated with his romp in the farmhouse and being on the run.

n Joshua is being targeted for civil commitment.

As I have said before, civil commitment is when the state attempts to commit someone to a mental institution; this is generally reserved for those sex offenders who commit violent crimes.

My case is simple: Joshua did not commit any violent sex offenses, therefore he should not be considered for civil commitment.

True, the sex offense for which Joshua was convicted is labeled "violent" by the state, but while it may be defined thus by statute, it cannot be considered so in reality -- the sex was consensual. And whether or not you think a 13-year-old can consent to sex, you must at least admit that Joshua didn't do anything violent according to the traditional understanding of the word.

Keep in mind, Joshua has served his time for his crimes (In fact, he has already been incarcerated months past his Sept. 2009 release date). He is certainly guilty of repeated bad behavior, and I do not begrudge anybody who thinks he deserves to be incarcerated for the things he has done. But we are not talking about that; we are talking about the state putting him in a mental institution with no release date and beyond the sentence he has already served.

Now, I don't know Joshua. I certainly don't know the whole story -- I wasn't there. But from what the state has accused or convicted him of, there is nothing violent that would make me think that he poses an extreme threat to society.

When I think of civil commitment, I think of serial rapists. I think of people who molest children against their will. I think of the scum that television crime dramas showcase week after week. I don't think of an 18-year-old who had consensual sex with a 13-year-old.

Civil commitment itself is a disturbing proposition. Our court system is based on strict rules that regulate what someone can be arrested and convicted for, and for what duration he or she may be incarcerated. By bypassing this system and creating a classification of individuals who can be put in mental institutions, the court system undermines itself.

Furthermore, by targeting basically non-violent sex offenders for commitment, the state is undermining its case for civil commitment. If it's going to be done, it has to be reserved for rare cases that actually involve violence, not for common non-violent ones.

The fact that someone like Joshua Curtis can be targeted is enough to cast doubt on the civil commitment process. If he had repeatedly raped women, or committed violent sexual assaults over and over again, I would not be writing this column. But again, he did nothing of the sort; when he was a teenager, he had sex with another teenager. He was 18. She was 13. He served time for the crime. Enough already.

If the state thinks Joshua needs treatment, they could be giving it to him while he is incarcerated. If the state thinks he shouldn't be allowed on the street, then he should have been given a longer sentence for his crime. But the last thing the state should do is put him in a mental institution.

This situation goes against what people expect when they deal with the court system. It goes against the unspoken agreement the people have with their potential jailers. And it goes against the sense of fairness with which we Americans grow up.

It is ridiculous to target Joshua Curtis for civil commitment. The state needs to back off.

Contact editorial page editor Alex Granados at agranados@insidenova.com.