The Forensic Nurse

Many victims of sexual crimes live the remainder of their lives, or a good portion of it, in fear that they will be victimized again. They often want to see their attacker locked up forever as punishment for the torment they experienced.

 Some states actually do have laws on their books to do just that. Most people dont even know such laws exist. They are called civil commitment laws and basically say that when a person becomes and has repeatly shown to be an emminent threat to the community as a whole, the govenment has the ability to incarcerate that individual indefinately.   

“The primary goal is incapacitation, that is, protecting society from people who are predicted to be dangerous in the future,” said Eric Janus, author of “Failure to Protect” and dean at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. “The second goal is to provide treatment to these individuals.”

In 1990, Washington state became the first state to pass a civil commitment law specifically for violent sex offenders. Twenty states now have civil commitment laws.

Indefinate confinement of individuals to mental hospitals or treatment centers for those with severe mental illness has been acceptable in the United States since its close to its birth as a nation. Around turn of the 20th century many laws dealing with sexual psychopaths were passed as women gained more and more rights. But as the century progressed the laws were either repealed or rarely applied.

This week the United States Supreme Court is re-evaluating its position on civil commitment based on an appeal. They have upheld the use of such laws in the past when the goal has been rehabilitation and not further punishment. These laws can mandate indefinate treatment even after their criminal time behind bars has ended. Some argue that these treatments could happen while the person is incarcerated rather than after their sentancing.

The case being heard by the Supreme Court this week centers around a lay that has been used in as many as 77 cases where inmates were held in a federal prison in North Carolina under indefinate commitment.  “The justices will decide whether the program enacted under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 is constitutional by infringing on a traditional state function”.

Alan DuBois, attorney for the federal prisoners, said it was wrong for the United States to claim a public safety argument when justifying continued incarceration.

“This statute is not written constitutionally,” he added. “It effectively does require no connection between the underlying criminal charge and the subsequent commitment. You can be in custody for any crime whatsoever. ”

Lawyer David Hargett convinced the Virginia Supreme Court that his client had a constitutional right to contest his civil commitment.

“I have found talking with people they are shocked to hear somebody can be sentenced by a judge, serve out that entire sentence and then say, ‘Wait a minute, we’re not going to let you go,’ ” Hargett said, calling it a legal “black hole.”

The full story can be viewed on cnn.com

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010 at 10:19 pm and is filed under Laws, Prevention, Resources, Sexual Assaults, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.