Court ruling shouldn't allow sex offenders to bypass treatment

A Circuit Court ruling that prohibits probation officials from requiring that sex offenders get treatment shouldn't be allowed to hamper the handling of these dangerous criminals.

South Carolina has 1,300 sex offenders who are monitored by the state Department of Probation, Pardon and Parole Services.

The department routinely requires sex offenders to participate in treatment designed to allow them to become safe citizens rather than predators.

No longer. A circuit judge ruled that the department does not have that authority. It cannot act as a judge and add punishment to the sentence unless it is ordered by the court.

The ruling may be legally sound, but it is unfortunate in that it could allow sex offenders to skip treatment that may curtail their criminal activity.

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by two men who were convicted of having sex with underage girls. Probation officials had required them to participate in sex offender counseling, and they refused. When the state tried to prosecute them for violating probation, the court ruled that it could not require the treatment.

Probation department officials do not know how many cases may be affected by the ruling, but they said many judges leave the treatment options up to the department, and the counseling represents a major portion of the rehabilitation effort toward these offenders.

Court officials will have to determine a method for minimizing the disruption to the way the state is handling these cases. Lawmakers should modify the law so that treatment is routinely given to those convicted of sex crimes.

In fact, it would be wise to make sure the treatment is completed before rather than after the offenders are released from prison.

The Circuit Court ruling should be appealed to the state Supreme Court. The court should then find that such treatment should be required but shouldn't be considered part of the sentence.

Medical treatment of prisoners is not considered punishment and part of an inmate's sentence. Sex offender treatment should be considered in the

same way, required for certain offenders but not necessarily part of an inmate's sentence. That would allow the state greater freedom in managing these cases.