Here's a rather thought provoking take on this issue which points out that those who are civilly committed as "sexually dangerous" virtually never get released:
McAllister, the Kansas solicitor general, concedes that few offenders get out once they are civilly committed in the states. That opens up more questions when considering a federal statute that provides fewer protections for the accused. If you can civilly commit someone as sexually dangerous, why not civilly commit people believed to be just dangerous in general? McAllister says civil commitment has to be linked to a mental abnormality or condition. But a lot of people in prison are deeply disturbed. There are drug addicts, kleptomaniacs, vicious sociopaths. So why not commit them too once they have completed their prison terms?
"Constitutionally, it might be possible," to extend the rationale for civil commitment to other kinds of crimes, McAllister says. "I don't have a constitutionally limiting line for what kinds of mental disorders might be permissible and what [might] not. If they lead to danger to others, potentially, they could be covered under such a law."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122452485
It's worth pointing out that Graydon Comstock the appellant in this case was not convicted of acts which constitute being a "sexual predator" i.e. sexual abuse of children, rape, etc. but for the possession of child pornography.
Originally posted by no1marauderHow is it absurd?
Baloney. The ACLU has been fighting these civil commitment laws for years.
This is typical Thomas: ""The enumerated powers that justify a criminal defendant's arrest or conviction cannot justify his subsequent civil detention."
This, of course, makes no sense. Personally, I think these types of laws are violative of Na ...[text shortened]... s, but not the feds, can then go further and order post-sentence civil commitment is absurd.
The federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The states have general police power.
Where in the Constitution is there justification for federal civil confinement of sexual predators?
Originally posted by sh76The same place it says that the federal government can pass criminal statutes regarding "sexual predators".
How is it absurd?
The federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The states have general police power.
Where in the Constitution is there justification for federal civil confinement of sexual predators?
Originally posted by no1marauderThose criminal laws would have to pass a nexus to interstate commerce (Lopez) test.
The same place it says that the federal government can pass laws regarding "sexual predators".
I guess I should read the case, but I have a tough time offhand understanding how civil confinement of sexual predators is a regulation of interstate commerce.
Originally posted by sh76But imprisonment of them is?
Those criminal laws would have to pass a nexus to interstate commerce (Lopez) test.
I guess I should read the case, but I have a tough time offhand understanding how civil confinement of sexual predators is a regulation of interstate commerce.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt would depend on the law. I haven't read the statutes, but I've always been under the impression that federal sexual assault criminal rules all have an element that connects them to interstate activity. Should be easy enough to look up though... maybe later.
But imprisonment of them is?
Originally posted by sh76IF imprisoning "sexual predators" is a legitimate thing for the state and federal governments to do and IF civilly committing them beyond that period because of their inherent "dangerousness" is a legitimate thing for the states to do then arguing that it is not a permissible thing for the feds to do is incoherent.
It would depend on the law. I haven't read the statutes, but I've always been under the impression that federal sexual assault criminal rules all have an element that connects them to interstate activity. Should be easy enough to look up though... maybe later.
Alito's concurrence is interesting in it relies on the existence of state commitment laws to justify federal law on the subject :
The only additional question presented here is whether,
in order to carry into execution the enumerated powers on
which the federal criminal laws rest, it is also necessary
and proper for Congress to protect the public from dangers
created by the federal criminal justice and prison systems.
In my view, the answer to that question is “yes.” Just as it
is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the
apprehension of escaped federal prisoners, 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
(emphasis supplied)
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay; I'm looking at the federal criminal sexual abuse statutes (18 USC 2241, et seq.) and they're all limited to to crimes committed in places that are "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction" of the federal government or to crimes involving interstate activity.
IF imprisoning "sexual predators" is a legitimate thing for the state and federal governments to do and IF civilly committing them beyond that period because of their inherent "dangerousness" is a legitimate thing for the states to do then arguing that it is not a permissible thing for the feds to do is incoherent.
It is the federal government's job to regulate commerce and to regulate the territory under which there's special federal jurisdiction. Criminalizing such acts is allowed to Congress because there is specific federal jurisdiction to regulate those activities.
The federal government does not have the Constitutional jurisdiction to protect the populace in general. Congress cannot act merely because the law affects the general welfare of the people. Keeping sexual offenders in prison as a civil commitment is not regulating interstate commerce or federally controlled areas. It is acting to protect the general welfare of the people, which it cannot do. A state can do this because it does have the right to act for the general welfare of its people.
Originally posted by sh76This type of argument has been rejected consistently by the Supreme Court since McCullough v. Maryland (that's about 200 years ago) and was rejected again today.
Okay; I'm looking at the federal criminal sexual abuse statutes (18 USC 2241, et seq.) and they're all limited to to crimes committed in places that are "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction" of the federal government or to crimes involving interstate activity.
It is the federal government's job to regulate commerce and to regulate the territory und e can do this because it does have the right to act for the general welfare of its people.
The idea that Congress is barred from "acting to protect the general welfare of the people" would have been found amusing by the Framers.