U.S. Capital

SORTS Program Confines Sex Offenders in Seemingly Interminable Treatment

Mar 7, 2014

St. Peters, MO (Law Firm Newswire) March 7, 2014 – Sex offenders enterting treatment at Missouri state facilities face few prospects for release.

In 1999, the Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services (SORTS) program was established to confine previously convicted individuals who were deemed very likely to reoffend. Since its inception, 200 individuals, including several elderly patients, have entered the program.

At first, SORTS was restricted to the Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center in Farmington, Missouri, but with its growth — the program adds 20 patients every year — it has spread to space at the Fulton State Hospital. At $300 per day per patient, SORTS has cost Missouri taxpayers $25 million per year.

Most significantly, no one who has been admitted to SORTS has ever emerged from the program. Civil rights advocates and criminal defense attorneys are especially concerned by this last factor.

“There is a tendency for state lawyers to try to convince juries that the treatment regime is necessary to remain in place, even after treatment has been completed,” said Charlie James, a prominent Missouri criminal defense lawyer. “That creates the environment for patients to slip through the cracks in the system when they are no longer a danger to society.”

Prosecutors believe that the program is necessary to protect the vulnerable in society from sexual predators, but the process raises legal questions. The facility in Farmington is next to a prison, and the temporary exits of its residents are tightly controlled. Residents serve indefinitely until their risk to re-offend has been reassessed to a “tolerable” level — which some say will never occur.

Learn more at http://www.jameslawgroup.net/.

James Law Group, LLC
14 Richmond Center Court
St. Peters, MO 63376

Phone: 636.397.2411
Toll Free: 800.229.7112



  • State Settles with Insurance Firms over Workers’ Compensation Irregularities
    An insurance business truism: insurance companies love to collect money, but they detest parting with it. And a prominent January settlement between the Missouri Department of Insurance and two insurance companies certainly backed up the truth behind the stereotype. State insurance regulators settled with EMCASCO Insurance Company and Employers Mutual Casualty Company after examiners found […]
  • Missouri Marijuana Legalization Could Save Millions and Reduce Incarceration State-Wide
    Mere talk of medical marijuana legalization has some Missouri lawmakers scurrying; the state government is now preemptively passing resolutions to record the position of opposing local governments. While medical or recreational legalization of the drug in the Show Me State may remain unlikely for the present moment, it is far more certain that legalized marijuana […]
  • As Missouri Case Shows, Stand Your Ground May Not Prove Relevant Defense
    So-called “stand your ground” laws have received much national attention, especially after one such law was invoked in George Zimmerman’s successful defense (State of Florida v. Zimmerman) relating to Trayvon Martin’s death in February 2012. But at least one case in Missouri has demonstrated that killings can be deemed justified on broader, more complex grounds […]
  • Huge “Guinea Pig Worker” Award Telling Example of Workers’ Compensation Exceptions in Missouri
    Traditionally, workplace injuries in Missouri have been channeled through the state’s workers’ compensation system. But the state legislature amended the law several years ago to exempt injuries that develop over a period of time. Because of that reform, one such case culminated in a $28 million award this November. As a result of the amended […]
  • Should I Consent To Take Or Refuse To Take The Breath/Blood Test? Part 4
    The Prior Offender A prior offender is a driver who at the time of his stop and detention as a DWI suspect has previously entered a plea of guilty to or been convicted after trial of an alcohol/drug related driving offense. For this person, whether to consent or to refuse chemical testing of his blood […]