U.S. District Court approved forfeiture of Brian R. Gillingham's house to federal government.
By Doug Page
Staff Writer
Thursday, March 20, 2008
ENGLEWOOD — Chances are sexual predator Brian R. Gillingham won't be returning to Englewood after serving his 11-year sentence for gross sexual imposition of a 6-year-old boy.
Last month, the U.S. District Court approved the forfeiture of Gillingham's house to the federal government.
"I believe this was the proper outcome," assistant U.S. Attorney
Pamela Stanek said. In arguing for the forfeiture, Stanek said, Gillingham needed the privacy of his house to commit crimes, including child pornography.
"We frequently use the federal forfeiture laws in child pornography cases to take the instruments of the crime — computers, printers, video cameras," she said. "But this is the first time we've taken a house."
Gillingham, 41, was convicted in 2004 of the sex charge, plus seven counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor and one of possession of criminal tools — the computer.
He was sentenced to 11 years in prison and labeled a sexual predator. It was not his first prison term. In 1995, Gillingham was sentenced to three years in prison on federal child porn charges.
The forfeiture brought some relief to Englewood officers.
"He can't come back to our neighborhood," said Mark Brownfield, the city's police chief.
Sgt. Mike Lang, who was the lead investigator in the case, called Gillingham a "monster given the forethought and planning that went into satisfying his depraved sexual fetish."
"He has other houses in other
jurisdictions," Brownfield said. "Hopefully, he won't be back to Englewood."
Gillingham's house on Park Vista has no liens and is assessed at $140,830, according to the Montgomery County auditor.
The city hopes to get the majority of the proceeds from the sale of the house.
According to the auditor's Web site, Gillingham owns another house on Meadow Side Lane in Sugarcreek Twp.
March 23, 2008
Program’s escalating price tag
The costs for the Sexual Predator Treatment Program:
Fiscal year 2003 — $2.4 million
Fiscal year 2004 — $4.5 million
Fiscal year 2005 — $7.8 million
Fiscal year 2006 — $9.5 million
Fiscal year 2007 — $11.5 million
Fiscal year 2008 (present) — $13.4 million
Source: Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and Governor’s Budget Report.
Topeka — Kansas’ controversial program that indefinitely holds sexual offenders past their prison sentence continues to produce friction among lawmakers.
Last week, a move to require an audit of the program was defeated by legislators who said the request was a threat to public safety and jobs.
“The program works,” said House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney, D-Greensburg. “It protects the public, and it provides economic development for Larned.”
State Rep. Eber Phelps, D-Hays, said many of the employees of the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program are from the Greensburg area and were set back from last year’s tornado that devastated the town.
“I don’t think we need to put them through this type of anguish and have them worry about whether they are going to have their job,” he said.
[Ed: Did these guys just say that? They admit to it? Incredible! Obviously, the economy of "Larned" and Greensburg and government jobs for the marginally employable is more important than the Constitutional rights of the men locked up in an ersatz treatment program!]But some lawmakers believe the program, which is on the grounds of Larned State Hospital, has shortfalls.
Program history
The program provides treatment for convicted sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences and have been civilly committed under the law because they have been deemed a continuing threat to the community. The law was prompted by the 1993 rape and murder of a Pittsburg State University student by a sex offender who had been released from prison seven months earlier.
The law was challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on a 5-4 vote ruled that the program was constitutional.
But the costs of the program continue to increase while some legislators are doubtful that the treatment received by the offenders is doing much good.
In recent weeks, lawmakers have approved $1.3 million in supplemental funding for staffing and operations at both the program at Larned State Hospital and transitional housing for patients at Osawatomie.
The proposed budget for the sexual predator treatment program for the present fiscal year is $13.4 million to treat 171 patients. That is five times more than the program cost in 2003.
State Rep. Bob Bethell, R-Alden, who chairs a budget subcommittee that oversees the program, said since the program’s start in 1994, two have graduated through the various phases of treatment and been released.
That’s not very effective, he said.
“Let’s look at the program and see how we can actually affect the treatment of these folks,” he said.
Mark Brull, who has been committed to the sexual predator program since 1999, said the program is a waste of taxpayer’s money.
Brull said he would rather serve time in prison, which is about one-third the expense of the program.
He said the treatment program fails to advance patients toward re-entering the community, such as allowing patients to go to work under supervision. He said he is prohibited from talking about his current problems, but must constantly re-hash his past.
“All we do is sit here all day and talk about deviancy,” he said.
‘Backed-up system’
Tim Burch, another patient in the program, said the treatment has good things to offer but that there needs to be a better way to assess who should enter the program and who should graduate from it.
“You could put ankle bracelets on a lot of them and let them out so they could work, and everyone benefits,” he said, referring to devices sometimes used to keep track of suspects and offenders.
“You have such a backed-up system,” he said of the program. “The people who could benefit from the program can’t get into it, and the people who shouldn’t be in the program can’t get out.”
But Don Jordan, secretary of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, defends the program.
SRS, Jordan said, “has implemented a rigorous treatment and evaluation system to assure each person committed in this program remain in treatment until a court determines he is able to safely return home without posing a risk to his family, neighbors or community at large.”