Editorial: Legislature shows lack of foresight

Tuesday, March 9, 1999 | 11:12 a.m.

The 1997 Legislature passed a law that required the state to conduct psychological evaluations of sexual offenders before judges sentenced them. The intent was to provide more comprehensive psychological portraits than those offered by defense attorneys.

But as the Sun's Bill Gang reported Monday, the sentences of 67 convicted sex offenders may be in question, since the psychologist hired by the state Parole and Probation Department to complete the evaluations hasn't been licensed in Nevada. A Clark County deputy public defender believes prisoners may have to be returned to courtrooms so new sentencing hearings can be conducted.

The law's shortcomings aren't focused just on the qualifications it requires for the psychologist performing the evaluation (psychologists are allowed a two-year grace period to get their credentials while they conduct examinations elsewhere in state government). In fact, the law itself is an excellent example of legislators passing a bill that makes them look "tough on crime," even as they don't consider all the elements required to make the law work.

For instance, the state unwisely relied on funding for the program to come from a $925 assessment charged to each defendant. But the amount received from defendants to fund the program has been just under $3,000 (either because they can't or won't pay), when the program should have collected more than $104,000.

This means that Parole and Probation has to dip into other funds from its budget to offset the shortfall. The agency at the outset hired just one psychologist, but the overwhelming demand for evaluations created a backlog. In one case, it took six months before an evaluation was performed on a man who was charged with kidnapping and lewdness with a 6-year-old girl.

The value of the examinations has received mixed reviews. District Attorney Stewart Bell and many defense attorneys don't believe they're needed. But some judges say it helps, because often the defense-funded evaluations are weighted in favor of the defendant.

The 1997 Legislature was guilty of not doing the necessary research to make sure the program would have the needed tools. The Legislature's failing, however, doesn't automatically mean the concept is flawed.

The program hasn't been given a fair chance to see if it can work. The 1999 Legislature should make the necessary adjustments, including a stable source of funding, and give the program a two-year test. In 2001 the Legislature should get input from judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and psychologists to consider whether the program meets its objectives; if it doesn't, the Legislature should pull the plug. Hopefully, this time, legislators will learn from their 1997 mistake.