Texas Senate Bill SB2037

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 5/5/09
• Voted on by Senate: 5/7/09
• Out of House Committee: 5/21/09

Caption

Relating to the sex offender civil commitment program and to the creation of a state agency to perform the functions relating to the sex offender civil commitment program that are currently performed by the Council on Sex Offender Treatment.

Impact

The implementation of SB2037 is expected to significantly affect the handling of sex offender management in Texas. The OVSOM will have the authority to contract treatment providers and manage the supervision of individuals released under civil commitments. This centralization within a new agency may lead to improved consistency in treatment and support services offered to offenders, while also ensuring a coordinated approach to monitoring compliance with civil commitment requirements. Additionally, the bill mandates a biennial examination for committed individuals, thus facilitating regular assessments of their progress and risks.

Summary

SB2037 proposes to create a new state agency, the Office of Violent Sex Offender Management (OVSOM), to oversee the functions related to the sex offender civil commitment program currently managed by the Council on Sex Offender Treatment. The bill aims to ensure more effective monitoring, treatment, and rehabilitation of sexually violent offenders, thereby enhancing public safety. By establishing OVSOM, the bill intends to streamline processes and clarify existing protocols involved in the civil commitment of such offenders. The new agency will be responsible for managing the treatment of civilly committed individuals, including developing treatment plans, coordinating case managers, and overseeing compliance with legal and therapeutic requirements.

Contention

While the bill has support for its intention to enhance public safety through better management of offenders, there are points of contention regarding the adequacy of resources and the potential for overreach into personal rights. Critics may argue that creating a new state agency is both costly and unnecessary, raising concerns about the efficient allocation of state funds. Moreover, some advocacy groups may express fears that increased surveillance and control of civilly committed individuals might not effectively serve rehabilitation goals and could contribute to stigmatization and discrimination against these individuals.