Letter to Mark Herring, Attorney General of Virginia
Page 2
!
OAG is aggressively pursuing this case against Galen despite a 2012 jury finding that Galen is not a
sexually violent predator (SVP) and despite the finding of the expert psychologist initially appointed for
the Commonwealth in the current proceedings that Mr. Baughman is not a SVP.
As one of your attorneys confirmed in court, “ultimately, the Attorney General has discretion on whether
or not to file a new petition…the Attorney General has to look at the circumstances of the [probation]
violation and determine whether or not they feel like that might be evidence of an inability to control
predatory behavior such that the individual is likely to commit new sexually violent acts.”
2
It is ethically and legally unacceptable that the OAG is squandering Commonwealth resources to secure
the civil commitment of Galen in the absence of any allegation of criminal conduct or even evidence of
the intent to engage in such conduct. The handling of Galen’s case is additionally strange in view of the
fact that the Virginia civil commitment program is over-budget and its designated treatment facility
overcrowded.
3
While acknowledging that there was nothing that could be characterized as sexual in Galen’s text
communications, your office argued that his texting “ultimately could lead to additional predatory
behavior, making him more likely to engage in sexually violent acts.”
4
But there was no predatory
behavior here.
At a hearing on May 10, 2018, it became clear that the expert conclusions and bases for those
conclusions, deemed insufficient for civil commitment in the OAG’s 2009 civil commitment application,
are essentially the same as those of the current OAG expert, who was retained only after the state’s initial
expert concluded that civil commitment was not warranted in Galen’s current case.
5
Evidently,
representatives of your office believe that once a gay man has been convicted of a sex offense, any
communication with another young man, regardless of the nature or content, constitutes “grooming” of a
future sex partner.
6
It is shocking and inexcusable that Commonwealth attorneys could freely assert such
patently homophobic notions as the basis for subjecting a young man to indefinite imprisonment.
To be clear, all of the undersigned have severe concerns with the Virginia version of civil commitment,
what can only be described as a cruel and ineffective set of laws. The American Psychiatric Association
vigorously opposes these laws. One clinical psychologist who worked at a civil commitment facility in
Larned, Kansas calls the state’s civil commitment statute “an abomination.”
7
Recent studies also
document that LGBT citizens are arrested and punished at a rate that is disproportionate to their
representation in the general population.
8
The homophobic bias that drives this disparity was evident in
2
Transcript at 11-12,15.
3
The Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation (VCBR) is operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and
Developmental Services (DBHDS) Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation, http://vcbr.dbhds.virginia.gov/. The facility,
which opened in 2006, was constructed with a maximum capacity of 300 individuals. The number of individuals civilly
committed shot up dramatically in 2006, after lawmakers expanded number of crimes that would make someone eligible for
commitment from four to 28. As of July 2016, there were 374 male and 3 female residents committed to VCBR. Va. assessment
of sex offenders flawed, study says, Associated Press, November 15, 2011, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-
scene/post/va-assessment-of-sex-offenders-flawed-study-
says/2011/11/15/gIQAefmLON_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f891c341bb12;
Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation, Presentation to the House Appropriations Committee (June 18, 2008),
http://hac.state.va.us/committee/files/2008/06-18-08/VCBR--06-18-08--Color.pdf
4
In the Matter of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Galen Michael Baughman, Arlington Circuit Court, Judge Fiore presiding,
Hearing Transcript, May 10, 2018, at 15. (Hereinafter “Transcript”). Following these comments, the judge suggested to counsel
for Galen that his giving a young man a ride home to change from his funeral clothes was “grooming behavior” on Galen’s part,
even though there was no allegation that Galen had said or done anything remotely inappropriate, because, as the judge put it,
“well, but grooming sometimes takes a while.” Transcript at 15-16, 21-22.
5
Transcript at 21-22.
6
This characterization of Galen’s emails clearly had an impact on the judge, who in colloquy with counsel for Galen flatly states,
“The reason why he is here is because he was grooming a 16-year-old.” Transcript at 83.
7
Koeppel, Barbara, “Sex Crimes and Criminal Justice: Formerly Incarcerated sex offenders say civil commitment programs deny
proper rehabilitation.” May 4, 2018. Available: www.washingtonspectator.org/koeppel-sex-crimes-and-criminal-justice/
8
See, e.g., Ilan H. Meyer, PhD, et als., Incarceration Rates and Traits of Sexual Minorities in the United States: National Inmate
Survey, 2011-2012, 107 AJPH 234, 238-239) (also noting that “because sexual minorities transgress societal norms, they are