Free Execise Challenge to Sex-Offender Treatment Rejected By Court

In Washington State v. Shaughnessy, (WA Ct. App., May 22, 2007), a Washington state appellate court rejected a claim by a convicted sexual offender, whose supsended sentence was revoked, that his free exercise rights protected by the state constitution had been violated. James Shaughnessy had been sentenced to complete three years in sex-offender treatment, along with other restrictions, as a condition of the suspended sentence. After completing only a few sessions, Shaughnessy fled to Mexico. When he was finally sent back to the U.S., he claimed that the only reason he had fled was that his treatment provider would not let him bring a Bible to his treatment sessions and allowed him to attend church only if he avoided children there. The court held that the reason for revoking Shaughnessy's sentence was that he fled to Mexico. He could have gone to court to challenge the conditions imposed or could have requested a change in treatment providers. The court held that the state did not burden Shaughnessy's religious practices because the conduct he complained of came from his private treatment provider, and the court had not required that particular person be used.