Supreme Court Allows Indefinate Imprisonment Of Sexual Predators

In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.

Extended Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders Is Upheld

By ADAM LIPTAK • New York Times

WASHINGTON — In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.

The 7-to-2 decision touched off a heated debate among the justices on a question that has lately engaged the Tea Party movement and opponents of the new health care law: What limits does the Constitution impose on Congress’s power to legislate on matters not specifically delegated to it in Article I?

The federal law at issue in the case allows the government to continue to detain prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct, suffered from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves. If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by “clear and convincing” evidence — a heightened standard, but short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” — it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or a state assumes responsibility for them.

The challenge to the civil commitment law was brought by five prisoners. The case of Graydon Comstock was typical. In November 2006, six days before Mr. Comstock was to have completed a 37-month sentence for receiving child pornography, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales certified that Mr. Comstock was a sexually dangerous person.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., unanimously ruled that none of the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution empowered it to authorize such civil commitments. But the decision was stayed, and Mr. Comstock has remained confined in a federal prison.

At the argument of the case in January, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, now President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, said the law was needed “to run a criminal justice system that does not itself endanger the public.” She said 105 people had been confined under the law.

Ms. Kagan pointed to the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause as granting Congress the power to pass the law, though the clause is not ordinarily thought of as a source of free-standing authority. The clause gives Congress the right “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its other powers.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for himself and four other justices, said the clause provided Congress with the needed authority as long as the statute in question was “rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.”

Congress has the undoubted powers, Justice Breyer said, to enact criminal laws in furtherance of its enumerated powers and to create a prison system to punish people who violate those laws, though neither power is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. “The civil commitment statute before us represents a modest addition,” he added, comparing it to medical quarantine.

Justice Breyer took pains to make clear that the court was not ruling on the separate question of whether such confinement violated the Constitution’s due process clause.

Two justices, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy, voted to uphold the law but did not adopt Justice Breyer’s general approach.

In his concurrence, Justice Alito said he was concerned about both “the breadth of the court’s language” and “the ambiguity of the standard that the court applies.”

But he said the civil confinement law passed constitutional muster. “Just as it is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the apprehension of escaped federal prisoners,” he wrote, “it is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the civil commitment of dangerous federal prisoners who would otherwise escape civil commitment as a result of federal imprisonment.”

“This is not a case in which it is merely possible for a court to think of a rational basis on which Congress might have perceived an attenuated link between the powers underlying the federal criminal statutes and the challenged federal criminal provision,” Justice Alito added, saying there was in this case at least “a substantial link.”

Justice Kennedy added that the majority did not pay enough heed to the 10th Amendment. Under the amendment, he wrote, “the Constitution delegates limited powers to the national government and then reserves the remainder for the states (or the people), not the other way around, as the court’s analysis suggests.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented in the case, United States v. Comstock, No. 08-1224.

“The fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime — sex-related or otherwise — does not provide the government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person,” Justice Thomas wrote.

I find this ruling both necessary and frightening.

I hope this civil commitment is used only in extreme cases, and that the judicial review needed to use it is both thorough and humane.

Comments

[effie]

First the gov must prove that they are a sexually violent predator. They are represented by counsel, have experts, call witnesses all the rights of a trial. And yes, they can later contest their continued detainment and they must receive treatment while they are detained. But these are people who have tens if not hundreds of victims. They were never caught before the statute of limitations ran out. Or, cases were plea bargained away. But a guy who may have committed 140 rapes, is caught and sentenced on a few, does 20 years, is still going to be a serial rapist.

[uncle joe mccarthy]

i do not see the difference between a serial sex offender and a serial burglar

both are dangers to society

and counseling doesnt work for sex offenders...it is an addiction that after years of abuse, has changed their brain chemistry.

there is a facility in central cali set up to house serial offenders. all are offered counseling, most do not participate. they dont participate because to do so would be tantamount to admitting that they are serial abusers, which decreases their chances not only of ever getting out (a catch 22) but of finding a place to live and gainful employment.

the system is set up that once you are convicted, you might as well stay in prison forever. (which for some is a good thing) but not for all.

[Abracadabra]

Does this apply to someone who was found guilty of a sex offense in a State court? For example, someone like Liebovits.

Or, does it only apply to someone who was found guilty of a sex offense in a Federal court?

As far as I know, most sex offenders are tried in State courts, and their crimes are only Federal if they cross the US border in the course of their crime, or cross state lines, etc. which doesn't happen in the majority of cases.

Does anyone here have any more knowledge of these details?

[The Other DK]

Link to the opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

This is a Federal law, applying only to offenders in Federal custody. IIRC, there are some states with similar laws.

[anon for this]

Would this law, even though it applies only to federal offendors, make it easier for states to pass similar laws? Would it reduce constitutional challenges to existing state laws?

[Shmarya]

Would it reduce constitutional challenges to existing state laws?

It would remove federal constitutional challenges to similar laws, I think.

[harold]

Is this ruling restricted to sexual crimes? This has to be carefully controlled because if unchecked it can be real dangerous.

If someone was convicted of not paying his taxes and gets jail time. What if the government says when his time is up that "we think that he will continue to not pay his taxes so we would like to keep him in prison to make sure he won’t"? I thought that the whole purpose of taking ones time to decide on sentence is to consider all points and arrive at a decision as to length of incarceration. To then throw this out defeats the purpose of what justice is about. Just look at how long it is taking to simply come up with the "number" of years that SMR should be in prison. To fool a prisoner who is counting down his time until his sentence is over and simply say, sorry we were kidding when we said that you are sentenced to 20 years is wrong.

If one is worried about future crimes I think that work has to done to perfect technology to minimize the risk I used to have a GPS that kept a "cookie trail" of ones route i.e. the technology is here where one can keep track of someone’s movement, position and time. This is a great deterrent and if you tie this in with some form of biometric monitoring and recording and you are building a possible working solution. Imagine a recording device being triggered if ones heart rate or pulse goes above certain levels.

These are some random thoughts as to some possible options over the simplistic solution of keeping one locked up beyond their time legally served. Listen, if you feel that a sexual predator will always be a predator then put on the book that the sentence for the crime of sexual abuse is life imprisonment and that is that. This way one will know what his punishment would be, not these open ended quasi judgments.

[effie]

"i do not see the difference between a serial sex offender and a serial burglar both are dangers to society"

And we have the 3 strikes laws for them.

California has had these types of laws on the books since 1996 and they have been held constitutional. Any state can enact them.

Comstock was convicted of a federal law so the feds can detain him. I have seen the feds handle sex cases that are committed on federal land, so those would apply.

The press is not giving an accurate view of why these men fall under this law. They may report what they are currently being held on, but they have long histories of sexually violent conduct or sexual molestation of children. The prior conduct does not have to be on federal land and if it is similar to California, the prior conduct does not have to be convictions.

[anon for this]

shmarya, thanks for the reply, but could state laws still be challenged at the state supreme court level? What effect would the SC decision have on that?

harold, the ruling only applies to sexually dangerous offendors.

[Shmarya]

I'm not sure.

I suspect that if a state passes a law that fits the SCOTUS ruling, and a state court rules that law unconstitutional based on the state's constitution, that ruling would be overturned.

But I'm not sure.

[harold]

harold, the ruling only applies to sexually dangerous offendors

For the moment. It will set a precedent though. A crack or a peek into a new form of justice.

[Bill]

I have no problem if a judge were to sentence a sex offender to life or until such time that offender can prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is no longer a threat to society - whichever comes first.

But it is patently a violation of due process to give the government "a second bite at the apple" - that is, a second oppporuny to incarcerate people after they served their sentences.

What about pyromaniac, kleptomaniacs, and compulsive gamblers, habitual drug offenders? Why not commit them "civilly" under the same rationale?

The law recognizes that one can be detained in order to prevent a crime that one -intends- to commit. but to redifine an irresistable urge as an intention is unconstitutional and sets a very dangerous precident.

the decision should be overturned or the law should be repealed.

[jorge Anibal Torres Puello]

Dear friends media friends,

This e-mail is to denounce the inhumane treatment similar to a NAZI consentration camp, I am being made to suffer at the Najayo Jail in San Cristobal, Dominican Republic.

And to request mercy for my fellow inmates.

I am in a prison that was constructed during the oppressive regime of the 12 bloody years of the quasi dictator Juaquin Balaguer.

Originally constructed to hold 700 inmates under the worst living conditions, now holds in violation of human rights laws over 4500 inmates.

The dirt is everywhere, there is no sanitary condition,all prisoners are held in small rooms of the size of a standard U.S. Bed Room, with over 75 people sleeping in the floor in each room next to human excrement and rats and insects.

There is no toilets or running waters, prisoners are awaken at 6:00 in the morning to shower with to gallons of water in hand when there is water and electricity.

Every day, there is over 200 fights over space and in the last 2 month over 50 death.

The prison population is denied the basic need as food, toiletries, medical care, psychological care, or anything a human being needs.

Over 90 percent is not sentence or tried and are on pre trial status for over 3 years and over 50 percent cannot afford the bails impose by the judges that ranges between US$ 10 and US$ 75 dollars for crime as small as stealing a chicken to eat. There is no human dignity in a country full of corruption.

To receive a visit, prisoners must pay bribes and other favours.

there is a small section used to show diplomatic officials of the foreigners held at the prison. It comprises of 10 fake cells to make them think that they are housed there. Once the diplomatic missions leaves they are taken back to atmosphere worst than hell.

With me there is around 16 american comrades who endures this kind of treatment with out the U.S. Government intervention.

Every other month the U.S. Embassy sends two U.S. Embassy Employees to provide us americans with a bottle of vitamins and reading material dated over 50 years old and the basic need as food, toiletries and human treatment, no one cares to secure us.

With us, there is prisoners from Colombia, Mexico, France, Spain and others.

At least the Spanish diplomatic mission knows the abhorrent treatment of its citizen and every month brings its citizen a U.S.$ 125 dollars help for its citizens survival.

I am the only Jew or person who adheres to the Jewish faith and it has been very hard for me to hold this mistreatment and the worst because of my religious conviction.

The other day I was given a choice to shave my beard or my chest hair, and of course I choose the later.

I have contacted numerous jewish organisations and because of the lies and bad publicity they all refusing to help me.

The consular officials cleans its hand with the excuse that they can't do anything, I have been asking for my religious diet, medical treatment and access to my lawyer and I am told that nothing can be done by them.

It has been over 62 days and in my section where I am held they (the prison official) has never given us food, I am surviving eating the little my family can bring me and starting this week they have no money to spend on me anymore as my mother have to decide if to feed me or my other 3 underage bothers.

For the past 60 days I only eat once a day or every other day as my family is over 50 miles away from the prison and to come every day to bring food will place a large financial burden on my family greater than they can hold.

I have lost over 40 pounds and have been taken over 10 times to the infirmary suffering with low sugar levels under 54 and high blood pressure of 115/ 150. This inhumane mistreatment is affecting me both physically, emotionally and mentally as I am starting to hear voices and and having bad nightmares.

All I pray is for mercy and the end of this mistreatment at the request of the United States Government and a Congressional investigation of the treatment of U.S. Citizen being requested on extradition from foreign countries.

The United States uses foreign prisons to TORTURE its citizens away from the protection and reach of U.S. Laws and Courts.

Please help me and have mercy as I have 6 kids to feed and be a father to.

Thank you and may G-d forgive those who are mistreating and TORTURING me.

I am accused of crossing people over the U.S. - Canadian border in 2002 and I am considered a Criminal but the U.S. Government is becoming a Monsters and Torturers of its own people.

Please help me as my health is very fragile.

Jorge Anibal Torres Puello, the advisor to the 10 U.S. Missionary arrested in Haiti and are now all free.

Attached please find some pictures of the prison cell without bed and the place to heat up the food.

[Predators]

What I think If one is worried about future crimes I think that work has to done to perfect technology to minimize the risk I used to have a GPS that kept a "cookie trail" of ones route