Sex offenders eye new day in court

Bill Gang

Monday, March 8, 1999 | 10:43 a.m.

The sentences of 67 convicted sex offenders are in question because the psychologist hired by the state to complete psychological evaluations before sentencing isn't licensed in Nevada.

It may cost taxpayers up to $100,000 to fix the problem, which has its roots in a 1997 law that required the assessments but did not provide funding. At the same time, there may be only marginal value in the evaluations, according to District Attorney Stewart Bell and defense attorneys who represent sex offenders.

The problem is that psychologist Charles Fazzino was not licensed in Nevada when he was hired by the state Parole and Probation Department to tackle a backlog of cases that had delayed some sentencings for months and frustrated judges and lawyers.

Unlike similar laws that give professionals working for the state up to two years to get Nevada certification, the law requiring psychological evaluations for sex offenders dictates that the evaluator already be licensed in Nevada.

Fazzino came on board in September to provide relief for the one psychologist originally hired to complete evaluations for offenders in the entire state.

The Nevada attorney general's office has issued an opinion that Fazzino's evaluations were improper and should be redone.

Deputy Clark County Public Defender Joseph Abood, whose Sexual Assault Unit has 46 cases in question, said he believes prisoners will have to be returned from prisons to Las Vegas courtrooms and new sentencing hearings conducted.

But the Department of Parole and Probation has no intention of redoing the evaluations, at least not yet.

"The division has not been advised by any court that it will be necessary for the division to redo evaluations," said Carlos Concha, who heads Parole and Probation.

As to how Parole and Probation is going to rectify the situation, Concha replied, "The division is currently in the process of reviewing the situation and seeking solutions."

The root of the problem, those in the judicial system say, is a lack of money. The result at first was a backlog that delayed some sentencings by months. Now it not only could cost thousands of taxpayer dollars, but also create more uncertainty for offenders and their victims.

The law only partially funded the requirement for the evaluations with $45,000 for two years, to pay the program's office expenses. The psychologists' salaries were to come from fees of $925 charged to each defendant.

Bell termed the self-funding plan "very unrealistic."

Deputy District Attorney Doug Herndon used more direct language in open court in expressing his frustration with the program, calling it a "boneheaded move by the Legislature."

Funds shortageIn reality, Parole and Probation has collected only $2,903 statewide as of Jan. 31, leaving the department to find money for the requirement from within its own budget. The state has conducted 113 evaluations since the program went into effect in January 1998. It should have collected $104,525.

Parole and Probation initially hired only one psychologist for the state, using salary money from its own budget, but the demand for the mandatory evaluations quickly exceeded the ability to keep up.

For example, in one case last year it took five sentencing dates over six months before an evaluation was completed for a man charged with kidnapping and lewdness with a 6-year-old girl, Herndon said.

"The fact that the process needed to be in place has delayed some sentencings for months, and the delays have theoretically put people at risk," Bell said at the time. "We don't want delay ... if it poses a continuing threat of victimization."

On the flip side, offenders who eventually got probation but could not afford bail sat in jail at taxpayer expense waiting for evaluations.

Judges fumed in frustration. The issue even cropped up at judges' meetings, Assistant District Court Administrator Rick Loop said.

To rectify the situation, Parole and Probation officials raided their budget again to hire Fazzino to handle evaluations in Clark County, where 60 percent of criminal cases originate.

But last month, Abood learned that Fazzino isn't licensed in the state, as the law requires. Fazzino has a master's degree and has conducted similar evaluations for years in two other states.

Concha declined to discuss Fazzino's future. Fazzino conducted his last evaluation on Feb. 10.

The issue is headed back to the Legislature, where it originated. Gov. Kenny Guinn's budget includes money for Parole and Probation to fund the program fully, without relying on fees from defendants. At the same time, the Clark County Public Defender's Office is asking the Legislature to pull the law off the books and evaluate its costs and effectiveness.

For all the controversy, Bell and Abood say there may be only marginal benefits from the evaluations.

Legislators, Abood said, "want to take credit for being tough on crime" but didn't want to spend the money to make the program work.

If the law were pulled off the books, Bell said, "I don't think there would be any great downturn."

"Before the evaluations were required," Bell said, "I felt we had a good handle on who the dangerous sex offenders were and the professionals at Parole and Probation had a good handle on who the dangerous sex offenders were and judges usually made good decisions."

The concept was to provide a better picture of the sexual offenders for judges to consider before sentencing.

Psychologists are supposed to address questions that include: What are the chances of defendants repeating their crimes? Can these offenders be helped and how? What triggers their impulses? Most importantly, will children and families be safe if the offender is given probation?

But in some cases, critics say, the evaluations have little or no value.

For example, in cases of rape, offenders are subject to mandatory life prison terms and are not eligible for parole for at least five years, if at all. An evaluation done before sentencing would be outdated by the time the defendant is eligible to re-enter society, they say.

If state evaluations are done, they should not be required until a few months before an inmate's release, Bell said.

Parole and Probation Officer Robert Lawson, who uses the evaluations and other information to compile sentencing recommendations for judges, agrees with that concept.

But he said the evaluations have value when making recommendations in lesser crimes, when a sex offender could stay in the community.

"Anything you can get on a person who commits sex offenses is always helpful," he said.

District Judge Michael Douglas agreed, noting that state-financed evaluations provide a balance to psychiatric reports from the defense teams.

"The defense-paid evaluations tend to be pro-defense," Douglas said.

In the years before the law, he noted, the court received psychiatric reports only from the defense, or made do with no report.

Abood, the public defender, said even so, reports by state psychologists tend to be hurried and less insightful than defense reports compiled by medically trained psychiatrists.

Douglas conceded that no matter what the evaluations say, judges are familiar with the facts in the cases and often make sentencing decisions based solely on the crime.

When confronted with a psychiatric report from the defense that concludes a person who committed a serious sex offense no longer is a danger to society, he said, "it makes me wonder why he did the acts that resulted in the criminal charges."

It is being left to the 1999 Legislature to determine how valuable the evaluations are, and to either fund or abolish them.