Legally not guilty but?

Factual Questions
41

**@JRDelirious **I think something that should be added is that when a judge is hearing proceedings in a civil commitment, he’s properly only supposed to evaluate whether the person is a danger to himself or others because of some mental defect and whether he needs to be committed to correct the matter of it some other form of treatment is more appropriate.

Now, again recent laws like I mentioned which were very specifically end runs around the prohibition on ex post facto laws essentially have made it so these hearings can find that anyone who a judge thinks has a problem with child-lust and might rape a child as mentally ill and eligible for commitment. Stepping away from that for a moment consider the broader issue of evidence ruled inadmissible in a criminal court being considered in a civil commitment proceeding.

Let’s take an example not involving pedophilia, but instead involving a man accused of murdering his wife in order to collect a life insurance payout and also because he had a mistress that he preferred to his wife and wanted to get rid of his wife and not have to pay all the costs of a divorce. Let’s say that he is acquitted at trial, but also that it is known he confessed the actual act of murder to a psychiatrist.

In confessing it to a psychiatrist he was essentially just doing so because he felt guilty and needed to get it off his mind.

In a civil commitment hearing the psychiatrist’s testimony would be 100% admissible and the psychiatrist would be required to repeat whatever information his patient had confided in him. In the criminal trial, it is my understanding of doctor-patient privilege (not a lawyer and I could be wrong) that the confession to the psychiatrist would be inadmissible.

At the same time, let us speculate on how the testimony would play out at a civil commitment. The psychiatrist would testify that yes, the individual admitted to murdering his wife. Then speculate the psychiatrist is asked to testify about the man’s mental state and imagine the psychiatrist says, “The man is gravely immoral. He came to me because he felt some degree of guilt, anxiety, and perhaps some depression over what he had done. However that was mostly temporary and he was by and large not materially affected by his heinous act at the end of my treatment of him. Further, while totally immoral, his actions were for material gain and not because of any mental defect. Additionally there are no signs of any mental illness.”

In such a case, a judge knowing full well he was dealing with a man that had 100% gotten away with murder would almost certainly not commit the person, because in the professional opinion of his psychiatrist the man was not mentally ill at all.

So in general civil commitment hearings, while not having the rigorous protections of a criminal trial in terms of what evidence can be used, still mostly remains an act to ascertain the mental competency of a person and ascertain whether they are an ongoing threat to self or others because of any mental defect. No matter what a civil commitment hearing finds, if it doesn’t demonstrate the person is an ongoing threat to self or others or that they have a serious mental illness, it will not commit the individual.

Of course some new legislation throws the classical example off the tracks, but by and large only a small number of states has pursued that route and even in those states only a very small number of persons have been civilly committed under those statutes.

42

I will apologize for the detraction but at the same time I feel it important not to just let constanze’s political opinions that she almost invariably presents as facts with 100% self confidence to be allowed to stand uncontested. In countless threads now she has essentially said in little ‘asides’ that the U.S. is a barbaric, backwards country. I don’t necessarily mind that as I’ve seen the opinions of uninformed Europeans for most of my life and have always mostly laughed at the massive hypocrisy they need to cast such stones. Where constanze is different is she tries to sneak them into posts totally unrelated to anything to do with such matters and usually in a way that clearly suggests she’s talking about black and white facts.

By doing it in such a manner she often avoids being called out on it because doing so is usually a major detraction from the thread itself. I do apologize for the hijack but it never would have happened if someone was able to stay on topic themselves instead of insisting on inserting political commentary into GQ threads.

43

Your question beings with a false premise–that there is a difference between being “factually guilty” and “legally guilty.” But there’s not. The legal system is the way that we as a society have decided to determine whether someone is guilty or not. So, “legally guilty” is all there is. Once a court makes a determination, that’s all that matters.

If a person is found “legally not guilty,” it doesn’t matter if you believe you have some special facts that make such person actually “factually guilty.” Absolutely no consequences will flow from your belief.

44

The soviets perfected the technique of committing people who they felt should not be allowed to wander free, for the greater good of society as a whole.

Sorry, but the police and prosecution had their shot at convicting the guy, and failed. The fact they failed so miserably with what should have been a slam dunk, is a reflection on them, not the courts. You only get one shot, you don’t get to try over and over until the verdict is what “society” is happy with.

As for vindictive prosecution - in the last season of American Idol, one of the contestants had to beg a judge to cancel his sentence of two years probation so he could keep competing. So what did this guy do to warrant a two-year probation sentence? Why, jumping the turnstile in the LA subway…

What’s that get you in Canada or Europe? A $50 fine?

45

I see your point.

46

Since this hasn’t been addressed yet, would a court have the legal authority to order any sort of non-punitive (which, I realize, is a slippery slope) action, such as forbidding the accused from, say, resuming his practice as a pediatrician? Since he (hypothetically) has been found not guilty, would anything stop him from going after people for slander and/or libel if they were to refer to him as a pedophile? Or discrimination if they refused him a job based on his arrest (but not conviction) record?

I’m really only looking to better understand the system here. I realize that my initial post probably came across as someone who wanted to kick the whole system down the aforementioned slippery slope, and I apologize for that.

47

Presumably the state board of the Medical Association would have a hearing and revoke his license or doctor accreditation? I assume the inadmissibility of the evidence does not apply to them? They are not an arm of the government, unless the government issues medical qualifications?

The guy escaped jail, any further consequence - loss of job, forfeiture of assets in civil action - well, that’s the reduced price he’ll pay for doing what he did.

48

The issue of civil commitments is just one example of civil proceedings that can arise from an action that also involves the criminal courts.

If you drive drunk (and are caught) in most states two things happen. First you are arrested on charges of DWI/DUI and a criminal proceeding against you begins. Secondly, your state’s DMV (or equivalent) begins administrative proceedings against you. You can be 100% acquitted of the charge in criminal court, but unless you actually go to the DMV administrative hearing and contest the allegation, in most states the default is that you lose your license. So it’s very different from a criminal court where if the prosecution fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty then the jury must acquit you. At a DMV administrative hearing you must present evidence to show that the officer was incorrect in his claim that you were driving while under the influence, if you do not contest it, typically your license is auto-revoked and you have to go through the exact same procedures to get it reinstated as someone who is convicted in criminal court.

I think the proper way to look at it is that these civil issues aren’t related to the criminal court proceeding at all. There are many actions which might cause a state regulatory agency to disbar someone, revoke their medical or pharmacist license or various other professional certifications. Some of those actions will also be crimes, but the outcome of the criminal case typically has no influence on the outcome of the administrative hearings. The administrative hearings will have set evidentiary rules that are not based on the rules of evidence in criminal trials.

One also shouldn’t view at as “they already failed to convict!” the civil proceedings are allowed to proceed regardless because they are not at all related to the issue of criminal prosecution.

49

Some licensing bodies are governmental and all are at the very least quasi-governmental. Admissibility of something in criminal court is irrelevant to what the government says is admissible in a civil administrative hearing. Typically administrative bodies are creatures of statute and the rules of those bodies are 100% governed by the statute that created them.

Now, there is a caveat that most (all that I’m personally aware of–at least that are quasi-governmental or governmental) of these administrative courts do not have the right of “final decision”, their decisions can typically be appealed into the “real” civil court system.