California has no proof of future guilt, yet ‘innocent until proven guilty’ doesn’t apply?

i’m not sure how common it is for a person to meet a civil commitment patient through someone else on the internet, then to start a relationship long distance, but this is what’s happened, and in six months of talking every day, i’ve come to adore james. he’s completed his prison sentence and parole as well, but the state of California just keeps on holding him for something he hasn’t even done —- and they have held him for over 20 years. it seems sincerely bizarre to hold a person in custody “just in case” they might commit a future crime. in the state of California’s eyes, james is apparently guilty of something they imagine he may do if released… however, if a person has committed no crime, they cannot be guilty. California has absolutely no proof of future crimes on james’s part —– yet “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply here. i would love to see james happy and free. he paid the price for his past, and i believe he deserves a chance at a future outside a civil commitment facility.


Comments are closed.