NH Legal Resource | Personal Injury | DWI | Criminal Law | New Hampshire Lawyer

Passed in 2007, the New Hampshire’s Civil Commitment Law was designed to keep sexually violent predators incarcerated if they are likely to offend because of a mental abnormality. The process, complex and deeply restricted, has not been widely used and carries serious flaws.

Civil Commitment Law

The civil commitment law was designed to keep sexually violent predators from being released after completing treatment, if they are likely to reoffend. County attorneys receive notification when an inmate who has committed an applicable crime nears their release date. If the attorney is concerned that the inmate has not been successfully rehabilitated, a multidisciplinary team of psychologists and psychiatrists who specialize in sexual offenses is brought in to review the case. If the inmate is deemed to be a sexually violent predator by a jury, their sentence can be extended in five-year increments.

However, if a jury decides the inmate is not likely to re-offend, the inmate is released. Unfortunately, the predator law does not include other options such as supervision or alternative sentences that could help with an inmate’s transition back into society.

Predator Law Evidence Limited, Funding Challenging

Another issue with the predator law is limited evidence. Prosecutors are finding that a primary piece of evidence, the Static -99R, a risk-based assessment used by psychiatrists to determine the chances of recidivism, is being limited by judges, rendering the assessment nearly useless. Attorneys are looking to lawmakers to establish a standard for the assessments and expert opinion.

Filing a civil commitment petition is an expensive process, costing nearly 10 times more than most cases at $30,000 largely in part because of the time experts put in reviewing case files and offering testimony; an expense that many offices haven’t budgeted for.

While lawmakers expected to make changes to the law in time, as it was used and any problems defined, its limited use has prevented all but the most minor tweaks. In fact, the law has only been used 34 times since its inception, resulting in 11 predator reviews since 2007.

When Financial Resources Mortgage of Meredith closed in 2009, in the face of criminal charges and federal investigations, investors lost over $30 million. New Hampshire will be establishing a fund to repay some victims their initial investments.

Senate Approves SB 180

Sponsored by Senators Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) and Peter Bragdon (R-Milford), the bill will create a victim compensation fund that will receive $3 million a year from fines and penalties collected by the Bureau of Securities Regulation and other agencies. According to the bill, victims would file to claim for half of their financial loss up to $500,000, Forbes reports.

Supporters of the fund say that victims of Financial Resources Mortgage of Meredith should be compensated for their loss because the New Hampshire Attorney General, the Bureau of Securities Regulation, and the Banking Department failed to stop the fraud and failed to follow up on red flags. Bragdon called it a “complete failure of state government.”

Democrat Senator Sylvia Larsen (Concord) agreed that the state government should have done more to halt the fraudulent activity, but stressed that the fund would be “reimbursing people for what were very, very risky investments,” the Seacoast Online reported. D’Allesandro said the aim of the fund was to ‘right wrongs’ not “restore every dollar” to investors. However, according to the article, opponents of the bill fear it will establish a precedent.

According to Forbes, a court order that specifies the amount of entitled restitution must be obtained by each victim prior to filing a claim. Limitations are also in place that will prevent anyone taking part in the fraud from seeking restitution, as well as those who profited or would have profited from the fraud. Claims can be filed for losses that occurred after January 1, 2006.

The New Hampshire House has rejected HB 451, a bill that had sparked wide debate and would have enabled residents to carry a concealed weapon without first obtaining a permit from the local police. Supporters of the bill wanted New Hampshire to join Vermont in its ‘constitutional carry’ laws, while opponents said the current law is working.

Opponents of HB 451

HB 451 would have repealed the current law that requires a permit to carry a concealed pistol or revolver. The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee did not support the bill, and voted 14-4 in favor of killing the bill, followed by a 226-144 House vote against the bill.

Opponents of the bill said that it would have nullified New Hampshire’s reciprocity agreement with some states that currently allow those with concealed carry permits to carry in other states. Democrat Rep. Renny Cushing, (Hampton) said that the “current law in the state of New Hampshire requiring a permit from the local community selectmen or local police is working. It’s a good policy we have in place and I suggest we keep it.”

In Support of HB 451

In Vermont and other states that have a ‘constitutional carry’ policy, convicted felons and others who are banned from owning guns are not able to carry firearms. HB 451 would have continued to bar them from gun ownership. Republican Rep. John Burt (Goffstown) said “The bad guys never have permits. It’s just funny that way. But the government says we the good guys must have permits.” Burt said that he supported the bill because he believes in his “God-given right to own a firearm,” and said that law- abiding citizens should not be required to seek a permit from the local police chief, town selectmen, or government body, the Union Leader reported.