Granados Column: Joshua Curtis: Locked up with perhaps no end in sight

For those of you who are regular readers of my column, you are familiar with the story of Joshua Curtis.

He is the man who, when he was 18, slept with his 13-year-old girlfriend and was forever branded a sex offender.

I don't have a problem with him being labeled a sex offender.

He is a man who served prison time for that offense.

I don't have a problem with that, either.

He is a man who, upon release, started a family and a new life, but made several bad choices unrelated to sex offenses and was, again, locked up.

I also don't have a problem with that. Commit a crime and you're going away. He did, and he served his additional time. By all rights, he should be free now.

Finally, he is a man who the state of Virginia is targeting for civil commitment -- confinement to a mental institution indefinitely and beyond the term of his criminal sentence.

I have a problem with that.

I talked to Joshua's mother Friday after he had a probable cause hearing to determine if his civil commitment case will go to trial. The judge determined that it will. So, on June 4, Joshua will have a trial that will decide whether the state can hold him against his will indefinitely.

From what I understand, part of the case rested heavily on charges of indecent exposure that were brought against Joshua by police after he had finished serving his original prison term and had gone home.

The gist of the story is that those charges were eventually dropped.

However, those charges are now being used as part of a score that determines if Joshua is eligible for civil commitment.

Joshua's lawyer argued Friday that because of a precedent established by a recent court case, those charges couldn't be used against him.

The judge dismissed this argument, saying that the precedent only established that the charges could not be used against him at trial, but were OK for a probable cause hearing.

So, but for the indecent exposure charges, Joshua would not be going to trial. And those very charges which are enabling the state to take him to trial cannot be used at trial. Ridiculous.

Imagine for a moment if you were charged with indecent exposure . . . for little other reason than police say you matched a description. Now say the police didn't have the evidence to actually make the charges stick, so they drop them. But despite that fact, later in your life those charges are used against you.

Most ordinary people would be outraged to have that happen to them. So, too, are Joshua and his family.

Regardless, the courts have decided that Joshua will go to trial.

The stupidity of this whole thing is this: Joshua Curtis is someone who committed one non-violent sex crime. He had consensual sex with a 13-year-old when he was 18. Of course, the Virginia says that sex between an 18-year-old and a 13-year-old can't be consensual, and the state has also labeled Joshua's crime to be violent. But we all must admit that when we think of non-consensual sex, we think of rape, and when we think of a violent crime, we think of . . . well, violence. His crime doesn't match the traditional definitions of rape or violence.

The sad thing is that without the label of violent attached to his sex offender status, he wouldn't even be considered for civil commitment.

This man is not a rapist or a child molester. He doesn't kill, maim or murder. He committed one indiscretion when he was young, and despite the fact that he went on to start a family and that he never was convicted for any other sexual offenses, he is facing being locked up in a mental institution until -- whenever the state feels like letting him out.

What I know of Friday's hearing was provided by Joshua's mom and another person who attended the hearing, but during this next week I am going to try to get a transcript of the hearing and bring the readers a more definitive understanding of what's going on here.

But what I do know for now is that Joshua Curtis is not the type of person I think of when I think of a violent sex offender. He doesn't belong in a mental institution. He has served his sentence and should go free.

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