Posted on 08/24/2007 7:56:43 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
(Offender will be in secure treatment for indefinite term)
Waukesha, WI - A convicted sex offender whose thoughts and fantasies about children, rather than actions against them, prompted authorities to revoke his parole two years ago now faces indefinite secure commitment for treatment after a jury verdict Thursday branded him a sexual predator.
The case likely will spark debate in the legal community over whether it presages a new dimension to the 13-year-old Wisconsin sexual predator law or merely highlights one of many factors already considered in determining the likelihood of sex offenders striking again.
Michael Monyelle's lawyer, Steven Prifogle, said there never would have been a case to bring to the jury if his client hadn't volunteered his thoughts about children to his parole officer.
"I think this could eventually have a very chilling effect for the people who are on probation or parole," Prifogle said. "You want them to be forthcoming about things."
Treatment orders
But Kevin St. John, a spokesman for the state Department of Justice, said the jury agreed with prosecutors that Monyelle is "a sexually violent person," referring to a predator law term.
"He is not being punished for his thoughts," St. John said. "He is being ordered for treatment."
Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Gabrysiak, who prosecuted the case, told the jury that Monyelle "has a problem, and his problem needs to be addressed." The case, he said, was about prevention.
Gabrysiak also said the thoughts that landed Monyelle in hot water were shared only after he was confronted about violating an aspect of his parole.
"He only volunteered his thoughts when he was asked," Gabrysiak told the jury. "Either he volunteered this information because he was confronted or it was a cry for help."
With the verdict after a 2 1/2 -day trial, Monyelle, 30, now faces a commitment that likely will be lengthy and possibly could last the rest of his life.
While more than 300 people have been committed under the predator law since it was enacted in 1994, just 18 are in the community; one more is set for release this fall.
Past convictions
Monyelle, of Waukesha, was placed on 10 years of probation in 1997 on two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child for relationships he had with two girls, one 16 and the other 14.
Both girls considered Monyelle their boyfriend, but they both were legally underage.
In 1999, Monyelle's probation was revoked and he was sent to prison because of inadequate participation in a treatment program for sex offenders.
In 2004, he was paroled with a requirement that he participate in treatment.
The following year, he was taken into custody three times, according to records, for having deviant thoughts about children that he did not report to his treatment group and delayed reporting to his probation agent.
His parole was revoked in 2005 because of the thought patterns and improper visits to sites, including shopping malls, where Monyelle encountered children.
A petition to have him committed as a sexually violent person was filed last year as Monyelle was nearing release from prison.
During his trial before Waukesha County Circuit Judge Lee Dreyfus Jr. this week, two state psychologists testified that Monyelle was at risk to re-offend while one psychologist, retained by the defense, concluded he was unlikely to do so.
He shared thoughts
Monyelle's former probation agent testified during the trial that Monyelle shared his fantasies about children when he underwent standard questioning about his thought patterns. The thoughts included sexual imaginings about children he saw on television and thoughts about abducting and sexually assaulting children he encountered in public.
Monyelle did not testify during the trial.
In his closing argument Thursday, Gabrysiak said that in addition to Monyelle's adult convictions for sexual assault involving the girls, he was found delinquent at age 16 for having sexual contact with a 9-year-old boy.
Gabrysiak also said Monyelle lied about the nature of the encounter during a recent interview with the psychologist retained by the defense, something the prosecutor said indicated dangerousness and a need for treatment.
He also said Monyelle had a habit of improperly visiting public places - including shopping malls, a toy store and a library - in hopes of encountering children, something that amounted to "planning and partial execution."
"He had to plan to go to Toys 'R' Us," Gabrysiak said of one of Monyelle's trips.
Prifogle conceded that Monyelle "may need some more treatment." But he added, "We wouldn't be here if he hadn't made those statements about his thoughts."
I want ALL children (even 14 and 16 year olds GIRLS who consider "predators" to be their "boyfriend") to be safe from these Freaks of Nature, but "thought monitoring" is a pretty dangerous territory.
Oh, wait. Maybe I'm not torn at all! Anyone who has no children of his own or in his life (say a niece or nephew to shop for) and plans a freakin' 'Scouting Expedition' to Toys 'R' Us just MIGHT have a problem.
But then again, I frequent bars from time to time, so am I a chronic drunkard? What do the MADD Moms think of me? I do go to the shooting range from time to time...so should people think I just might 'Go Postal' on them one day?
I work for local Republican causes. Some might say I'm a dangerous Neo-Con...if they could only read my thoughts. ;)
What say you?
I’m not torn at all. The fellow has issues and needs some help.
However, he isn’t a criminal. If thoughts make one a criminal, then we can all be put in jail at any time.
This is wrong.
Crimethink. Coming to a rehab institute near you.
And this is just one more case in the precedent-building file for jailing conservatives. It’s what They want to do.
I don't feel particularly happy about it, but I agree.
Just wow.
Yes, he is a criminal who has been on probation for the very crimes he NOW expresses fantasies of repeating.
To his probation officer no less.
If thoughts make one a criminal, then we can all be put in jail at any time.
Really? Do you tell probation officers (after violating your probabation) that you fantasize about committing criminal acts you are now on probation for?
This is far more than a case of the "thought police" jailing innocent people.
Pre-emptive justice. Interesting possibilities. What about the kid that shot up Va. Tech? If he had showed signs and was arrested, maybe 33 more people would be alive?
I think George Orwell was a clairvoyant.
Thought police. Wonderful.
And he’s doing more than thinking. His parole and treatment terms require that he avoid going to places where he will encounter children. Presumably there are provisions for normal activities like clothes and grocery shopping, which can be done with a responsible adult accompanying him. But there is NO legitimate reason for a convicted sex offender to be making trips to toy stores. If he wants to buy a Christmas or birthday present for a young relative, he is free to order online. Toy stores are clearly out, but he went anyway. He’s not be locked up for his thoughts, he’s being locked up for a combination of past crime, parole violations, expressing thoughts of reoffending to a parole officer, AND actions which indicate he is actually planning to reoffend.
Involuntary commitment for dangerous minds is a legal precedent with a loooonnnng history.
we don’t have to read your thoughts, we have your FBI file right here...
Well said and worth repeating.
oh yeah, guess what i’m thinking now . . . :)
Then he should be prosecuted for those acts alone. Thoughts which were not put into action (or inaction) have no place in law or the courtroom.
He was on parole (which was a mistake in the first place), thus anything goes.
To his probation officer no less.
What was the motive in telling the PO? If the goal is to have the PO work with him to find the least-restrictive way he can structure his life to avoid temptation, I would think it in everyone's interest for the PO to do precisely that. Sure, simply locking this guy up might keep other people safer from him, but it would discourage other parolees from speaking up themselves. By contrast, if parolees can be encouraged to work with their POs to figure ways of minimizing temptation, that might be better for everyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.