The Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to…an impartial jury.”
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to…have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to…be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”
So there was no indication that it was intentional or sexual in nature and he passed the polygraph test, yet, because they think that it’s only natural for him to have these thoughts, they’re refusing to release him. (BTW, consider the fact that an association with sex can always be made in such an encounter about anyone. And he’s not even the one doing the associating.)
He was treated unjustly; this would upset anyone. But because he actually stood up for himself and declared the charges false–and took a test to prove it–he’s being called egocentric.
**The United States Supreme Court cautioned in 1997 that a commitment must have a psychiatric basis and cannot be a mere extension of punishment, and it held last year, in upholding the Kansas law, that states must establish an offender’s “serious difficulty in controlling behavior” before committing him. **
Is it? Damn, I hadn’t thought of that. Looking over the definitions, I have to admit that it’s not applicable here. Sorry.
Anyway, the debate still stands:
Should the aforementioned practice continue or is it a merely a way to unjustifiably keep the unwanted in prison? Here’s an article that offers several arguments against civil commitments, some of which I’ve already mentioned.
Yes, and the same article mentions Kansas v. Hendricks which decided that
You appear to simply feel that the Supreme Court decided the issue wrongly: that their view of the Constitution is incorrect and yours is correct.
Unfortunately, that’s no an argument you can win: they are the ones charged with deciding what the Constitution means. The fact is that right now, civil commitment laws generally do NOT violate ex post facto or double jeopardy guarantees.
You may argue that, as a matter of sound public policy, civil commitment proceedings should not be held against convicted sex offenders merely as a result of their original offense, or you may argue that the Constitution SHOULD be read to prohibit them; you cannoy argue the Constitution DOES prohibit them, for it does not.
I don’t agree with the right to privacy the Court found in Roe and Casey. I argue it was a wrong decision, and as a matter of public policy should be this way. But I don’t contend that blanket prohibition of abortion is constitutional, as things now stand.
Anyone who thinks the supreme court to be infallable is merely very proud of their ignorance. The supreme court has reversed supreme court decisions before, including reversing what is and is not “constitutional”.
As Bricker has pointed out, these laws are constitutional.
Maybe you should start another thread (or make another post in this one) about the morality of these laws. Or any of the other draconian laws put in place to punish the US’s favorite boogeyman–and until there’s a show called “Law & Order: Arab Terrorist Unit”, they most definately are the chosen whipping boys…
First, as Bricker pointed out, the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses do not apply, because these are civil commitments. Now, civil commitments have been used in this country for many years, they allow for the confinement of mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others. Which is what the Sexually Violent Persons Acts are attempting to do. You are not punishing the offenders a second time, you are committing them because they pose a danger to others. Now, if you wish to argue that people should never ever be committed based on potential acts, I’d suggest you open a new argument and include the rest of the civil commitments in the discussion also.
There is an argument that it is difficult to determine the likelihood of future behavior, however, absolute certainty is not Constitutionally, nor in my mind, morally required before someone can be committed. Second, the SVP Act is not used in every case of every sex offenders. Here in Illinois, only a small percentage of convicted sexual offenders are even evaluated, and even less are determined to be a sexually violent person. In addition, a majority of jurisdictions use statistically based actuarial tables to determine the likelihood of reoffense, which have been determined to have upwards to about a 85% success rate.
Treatment in the Department of Corrections is not mandatory. As much as these sexual offenders need treatment, a vast majority of them refuse treatment. It is not like these offenders are seeking out treatment and being refused, they are not seeking treatment at all. Almost every study in this area has indicated that the likelihood of reoffense diminishes if the offender is treated. However, almost none of them get treatment on their own.
The assertion that there is not treatment recognized as effective in diminishing the likelihood of reoffense amoung sexual offenders is wrong. In addition, in every case involving a sexually violent person, the State must show that there is a definite need for inpatient treatment as opposed to outpatient. And after receiving treatment, offenders are monitored closely after their release.
There is definitely the underlying issue of whether or not someone should be detained based on future dangerousness. This is true not just for sexual offenders, but also for anybody civilly committed. However, Constitutionally, and morally, I think these laws are necessary.
I assume this remark was not directed at me, since nothing I wrote could be construed to suggest that I believe the Supreme Court infallable – indeed, I gave examples of what I believe to be Supreme Court errors.
What I did say, in contrast, is that the Supreme Court’s rulings are definitive - that is, they are the highest authority in the land on the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution, and it is thus folly to suggest that a law is unconstitutional at present when the Supreme Court disagrees with you. They are right and you are worng. This doesn’t mean their decision is carved in granite, but until they overturn themselves, it’s useless to suggest an SC-affirmed law is unconstitutional. It ain’t.
Bricker: “They are right and you are wrong” – huh? I read this the same way Dogface did.
I’m with the OP here: the Supreme Court has, in essence, carved a hellish hole in the Bill of Rights, and produced a mechanism by which anyone can be imprisoned, at any time, without trial or recourse.
To say, “It’s constitutional because the SC says so” is not helpful at all. It’s a non-response. It’s like “Because daddy says so” to an intelligent child: insulting!
Let me clean this sentence up for you a bit, so that it is factually correct:
The Supreme Court has, in essence, allowed the legislature to carve a hellish hole in my personal, and mistaken, interpretation of the Bill of Rights, and allowed the legislature to produce a system consistent with Due Process by which a convicted sexual offender can be detained until no longer a risk to reoffend, at any time after a probably cause finding, and then a series of legal hearings where the offender’s rights are protected, and then only until he no longer presents a threat to reoffend, WITH a trial AND further appeals and other recourse.
I agree with your argument that Trinopus doesn’t get the distinction between what is constitutional and what they think should be constitutional (or legal).
However, I wonder if you’ve read the article that the OP referenced in its entirety? I take issue with a lot of the latter stuff you’ve added (the opinions you added to make it “factual”): [ul]
[li]“No longer at a risk to re-offend” is a pretty sketchy standard: everyone is at a risk–however small–to be a sex offender. Unless you’re using a strong, well-defined standard you allow for a frighteningly arbitrary application of the law.[/li][li]“The offenders rights are protected” The “trials” the offenders are given and the rights they are accorded vary widely by state. Some states don’t allow jury trials, provide sketchy public defenders, don’t allow appeals, don’t disclose the identity of the judges involved, and rely heavily on the “patients” past behaviour. [/li][/ul]
Again: I’m not saying it’s unconstitutional. I’m just saying it smells a bit like a kangaroo court and deserves intense scrutiny.
First, my use of the term, "no longer at a risk to re-offend was imprecise. From the article, the law in New Jersey sets the standard at “highly likely” to reoffend. While I suppose that all sexual offenders who have been convicted are at risk to reoffend, it still sets a standard that must be proven by the State. And, FWIW, the standard in Illinois is “substantial probability to reoffend.”
Second, The trials done in New Jersey have been upheld under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Contrary to one of the assertions, in In re Civil Commitment of D.L. 797 A.2d 166
N.J.Super.A.D.,2002., the Court held that the law does provide the right to, not only appeal, but to be appointed an attorney to handle that appeal. While Illinois does allow for a jury trial (although a vast majority of offenders wish to waive that right), New Jersey does not, and was still held to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause.
I agree that the act, and the hearings, should be held up to scrutiny, but in a majority of states, they have been, and have been found OK.
If you are going to countenance the detainment and involuntary treatment of people on the basis of “mental illness” without a full-blown competency hearing (and without requiring a finding of true incompetence), you open the door to the incarceration of people without due process.
As I have said all along, the mental health system’s authority to detain and treat is already severely misused as a mechanism for removing inconvenient people from public and private domains where they are disturbing people without charging them with a crime or demonstrating that they have done anything detention-worthy.
If you do not wish to end up living in a social system in which any citizen can be detained on an open-ended basis and deprived of all liberties simply because some designated Expert on How You Should Think believes that there are undesirable things you might do if they don’t, you’d better help with the resistance. In this case they are being uncharacteristically overt about the fact that diagnostic criteria aren’t of any significant importance, just the belief that the individual in question might do something bad if given the opportunity.
As much as rape and child molestation give me the absolute creeps, I find this trend to be far far creepier.
They have ruled in ways that I disagree with, and created what I consider unsound public policy.
They have issued decisions that reverse other decisions.
But your question seems to suggest a belief that the Constitution is - barring amendment - immutable. That’s not so. The Constitution changes. In 1950, the Constitution did not require that warnings be given to people that were arrested, or that evidence seized by state police without a warrant be suppressed.
In 1970, the Constitution required both those things, despite the fact that the relevant text in 1950 was identical and unamended in 1970.
So which Court was mistaken? The 1950, pre-Miranda, pre-Mapp Court? The 1964 pre-Miranda, post-Mapp Court?
Or the 1970 post-both-decisions Court?
None, in my view. Each Court enunciated the then-current meaning of the Constitution. No one made a mistake. The Constitution just changed.
No, I understand that the Supreme Court (or rather each of its 9 judges) follows their own interpretation and that, though one can disagree with it, you can’t just call it wrong. However, I do think that arguments can be made for an overturning of that decision. (This is obviously constitutional now, but the 1997 decision could be overruled in the future.)
According to the article (page 3): “But most forensic studies have found no link between denial or hostility to treatment and future crimes.”
Also, as I’ve said before this debate is about whether this law is just and sensible. Constitutional arguments are certainly welcomed, but they are not the only acceptable arguments.
Thanks, Bricker for correcting me on the relevance of the Sixth Amendment in this case, and everyone else who’s replied to this thread.
If they want to keep these cons locked up, why don’t they just jack up their sentences beforehand, instead of tacking on this chilling and open ended confinement? Doesn’t make any sense. I’d think it would be easy and politically popular enough to increase sentences.
I’d be very interested in their information, because from everything I’ve read and heard, it is quite the opposite:
Or
Or
**I believe a law that allows for the civil commitment of convicted sexual offenders who have a substantial probability to reoffend are just and sensible. Once their risk to reoffend drops below that standard, usually after treatment, I support their release into the public with monitoring of their activities.
Well, that is the painful moment, Ahunter. That by very uncertain means we must make a choice. An analogy might be usefully drawn to how we decide which criminals we kill, which we warehouse, and we which we cut loose.
At this point, I am persuaded that sexual criminals, especially pedophiles, cannot be disuaded, by and large. Its not a matter of needing money, we can provide money. Its a matter of having what we will not permit them to have.
Even if they are amongst us, we must have assurances. As anxious as it makes my conscience, there are some people even a free people cannot allow total freedom. Perhaps, a free people can afford them even less.