Supreme Court Says Feds Can Detain Sex Offenders Indefinitely: Why That's Dangerous

[marmar]

AlterNet / By Liliana Segura

Supreme Court Says Feds Can Detain Sex Offenders Indefinitely: Why That's Dangerous
The U.S. government can now keep prisoners in custody who have not necessarily been convicted of a crime, based on suspicions of "future dangerousness."

May 20, 2010 |


The U.S. Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling this week in U.S. v. Comstock, which declared that the federal government has the right to hold convicted sex offenders in "civil commitment" even after they have completed their prison sentences, has alarmed civil libertarians, many of whom are asking: If the government can keep sex offenders in preventive custody as long as they remain "dangerous," what will stop it from doing the same with terror suspects? The rights of terrorists -- like those of sex offenders -- might matter little to the average American, but the implications for a free society are unmistakeably dangerous.

The possibility that Comstock could help justify the legal black holes at Bagram or Guantanamo is certainly a concern worth raising, particularly given the Obama administration's embrace of indefinite detention. But it seems equally important to consider the immediate implications for the prisoner population that may be affected by this law. It could be bigger than we think.

Blandly known as Section 4248, the legal provision upheld by the court this week was a product of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, the sweeping legislation that created the massive National Sex Offender Registry and strengthened laws prohibiting child pornography. Section 4248 holds that a convicted sex offender who is determined to be "sexually dangerous" can be detained indefinitely by the federal government, under order of the U.S. Attorney General. This was not an unprecedented idea: The Supreme Court had previously upheld the power of the states to "civilly commit" convicted sex offenders, in 1997, in Kansas v. Hendricks. In 2007, the Charlotte News and Observer estimated that some 2,700 state prisoners were being held in civil commitment.

But the new legal statute presented by the Adam Walsh Act was much more sweeping than anything addressed by Hendricks. An amicus brief submitted by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) on behalf of the respondents in Comstock points out that, for example, whereas states must provide a psychiatric evaluation of those labeled sexually dangerous, the federal government need only suggest that a district court "may order … a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant." If the court elects not to, it can "proceed directly to a hearing and make a determination regarding sexual dangerousness without any evaluation of the individual's mental condition having been conducted." ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/rights/146946/supreme_court_says_feds_can_detain_sex_offenders_indefinitely%3A_why_that%27s_dangerous/

[LiberalLoner]

1. Even though I've been a victim of rape as a child and a grown woman, I don't agree that these

offenders should be kept indefinitely.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Twenty years ago, if you were gay, a court could find you "sexually dangerous".

Imagine life in prison for being gay.

Reminds me of The Third Reich.

[w4rma]

3. Yes. This is a bad ruling. Which justices dissented? (nt)

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

10. Justice Thomas wrote a dissent . . .

. . . which was (mostly) joined by Justice Scalia.

[ixion]

4. This is a further encroachment of the Police State, pure and simple

And should simply not be tolerated by We, the People. Our government is slowly loosening the definition of what it takes to hold a person indefinitely, which means at some point they'll be able to 'detain' ANYONE indefinitely. I may be accused of being melodramatic, but if you look at how fascism progresses, you'll see we're following a textbook pattern by slowly demonizing the populace.

[Mike K]

14. Ordinarily I would agree with all you've said here

because I share your fear of incrementally encroaching totalitarian government. But in this specific circumstance I am sure the focus of the provision refers to the category of pedephiles who are absolutely predictable recidivists (which most of them already are). Interestingly, the vast majority of this category will candidly admit they are incapable of controlling their dark urges. In fact, some have actually asked to remain in custody rather than be released on completion of their sentences because they know what they will do -- and they truly don't wish to.

Criminal behaviorists have for decades recommended that special (non-punitive) confinement facilities be made available to house this category of offender after the punitive term of their sentence has been served in a regular prison. Because except for the heinous compulsion that torments them, with very few exceptions these offenders are peaceful, honest, inoffensive beings.

Because releasing this pathetic but truly dangerous category of offender back into mainstream society is virtual assurance that more children will be molested I am inclined to agree with the Court's ruling in this matter.

[ixion]

16. They're using pedophiles only to prime the pump, as it were...

There are many people who are still plenty violent out there. That's the problem. By isolating one sub-group and using this sub-group to make a fundamental change that further erodes the Rule of Law, they've succeeded in injecting a prime directive of the so-called 'war' on terror (such a thing cannot exist, as I'm sure you know) into domestic policy. Initially, this precedent will be applied only to the subset, but I guarantee you that over time the groups funneled into the Void of Indefinite Detention will grow.

While I can understand your motivation, I can't agree that this legislation is in any way a good thing. It will ultimately bring more harm to our society, and cause further erosion of the social fabric, just as it's older brother, the so-called 'war' on drugs has done over the decades.

Violence is an odd bird, philosophically speaking. On one hand, violence is inherent in the universe, and acts as both a constructive and destructive force in that capacity.

On the other hand, rampant violence in Society is a symptom of an ill society, and extreme punishment -- indefinite detention -- is no cure for that sickness. In fact, increasing punitive measures only makes matters worse.

[Butch350]

17. Good!

As long as you are not a violent criminal, uncurable child molester, menace to society - then what are you crying about.

The one thing that is wrong with this country today - is that the WRONG, UNDESERVING people manipulate the Law to their advantage.
Crimnals use our demococratic rules of Law to get away with, doh, MURDER!

[ixion]

18. Because, inevitably, invariably, YOU become a target at some point

It has always worked like this.

[Swagman]

20. don't forget a sex offender includes someone busted pissing against a tree

I would need to know what this law's definition of a sex offender is.
I thought statistics showed the recidivism rate was the lowest of all crimes.

[reggie the dog]

5. they tried a similar law here in france

luckily our supreme court ruled that once your penalty is done it is done. the thing didnt even make it to european union courts, now giving a life sentence for rape, however, is legal....

[rhett o rick]

6. First they will come for the sex offenders. If you arent a sex offender, you dont need to speak up.

Who will be next?

[qazplm]

7. civil commitments are for those folks

who are mentally ill, including sex offenders/pedophiles who are so as well.

There is a judicial and medical review process. This is not for every single sex offender, or child sex offender for that matter.

We do civil commitments and have for decades. It isn't limited only to sex offenders but anyone who is seriously mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others. The fact that a legitimate process MAY be abused is not a reason for it to not be used. It is a reason to make sure that the review process is substantive, and not abused, but if you are going to be against it in this instance then why not say all civil commitments are wrong because no crime has been committed and it COULD be abused.

Heck from time to time I have no doubt it is abused and has been in the past, but so is just about anything including standard incarceration which is abused all of the time, which again isn't a fault of the process, but a fault of the selected administration of that process.

[eShirl]

8. who else will they decide in the future is too dangerous for society?

[LiberalLoner]

9. Exactly - maybe "libruls" are too dangerous for society and ought to be locked away forever....n/t

[unblock]

11. in the case of indefinite regarding terrorism, we're NOT talking about terrorists

we're talking about people who the government has ACCUSED of being terrorists. which could be anyone the government decides is inconvenient. the shrub gang admitted that it knew many people at guantanamo were innocent and did nothing simply because they didn't want to deal with the political fallout of admitting that they made a mistake and some of them weren't the most evil people in the universe.

in the case of sex offenders, at least so far, it appears that this is restricted to people who were actually found (or pleaded) guilty to a sex offense. still, life imprisonment for possibly a single crime seems excessive, especially given the broad nature of the term "sex offense". perhaps it's justified for rape, but certainly not for indecent exposure.

[Wednesdays]

12. What, exactly, defines a "sex offender?"

I mean, is a rapist exactly like someone who looks at dirty magazines? :shrug:

[rhett o rick]

13. This is the problem. nm

[sabrina 1]

15. We do not keep murderers in prison once their sentences

are complete even though we know some will and have killed again. We don't keep thieves in jail after their sentences are completed either. We don't keep wife abusers in prison indefinitely, or drunk drivers, or anyone else convicted of crimes they may commit again.

We do not have a prison system that is based on rehabilitation. Our system to our shame is based on punishment. That means that every single offender who leaves after they complete their sentence, is a potential threat to society again.

If it is true that real sex offenders, not the 19 year old who had sex with a 17 year old, cannot be rehabilitated, then they are mentally ill and not responsible for their actions. They should not be in prison but in an institution for the mentally ill.

Using the most despicable of crimes to get support to set a very dangerous precedent, is the way we travel down the path of totalitarianism.

[Swagman]

19. 'sex offendors'..replaced the Red Menace. Always has to be an enemy

[Vattel]

21. One of the dumbest opinions I've ever read.

Breyer's opinion is really poorly argued. He stupidly tries to extend Congress's right (under the Necessary and Proper Clause) to lay down laws to ensure that federal prisons are "responsible custodians" of mentally ill prisoners to include a right to confine mentally ill prisoners after their sentence has expired. I still think Thomas is the worst justice on the Court, but in this case his dissent is vastly more reasonable than Breyer's opinion.