Patterico's Pontifications

5/17/2010

US vs Comstock: Commitment of Sex Offenders

Filed under: Civil Liberties,Judiciary,Law — DRJ @ 3:00 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The Supreme Court issued several opinions today. One was U.S. vs Comstock summarized at ScotusBlog:

“In United States v. Comstock (08-1224), in an opinion by Justice Breyer, the Court reverses and remands the lower court’s decision. The vote is 7-2, with Justice Thomas dissenting, joined by Justice Scalia. Justice Kennedy concurs in the judgment only, joined by Justice Alito.

* Holding: The Court upholds the law passed by Congress to order the civil commitment of a mentally ill federal prisoner who is a sex offender with the commitment to continue beyond the date the inmate otherwise would be released.”

I haven’t had a chance to read the opinion, but the story that led to the civil commitment of sex offenders and the discussion at oral argument in this case provide interesting background:

“The police photograph is chilling. In grainy black and white tones, it shows 13-year-old Martin Andrews sitting in a makeshift box, his leg chained. The look in his eyes is one of fear, fatigue and disbelief. He had just been rescued from a nightmare.

“I was abducted by a sexually violent predator by the name of Richard Ausley, who had been twice convicted for sexually assaulting young boys, and he had taken me for eight days,” Andrews recalled of his ordeal 37 years ago. “I was left to die.”

As a survivor of a sex crime, Andrews is one face of an issue the Supreme Court revisits Tuesday: civil commitment, which allows the government to keep sex offenders in custody even after they have served their sentences. Twenty states have such laws, including Virginia, where Andrews was held captive and repeatedly assaulted.

During Tuesday’s arguments, the justices expressed some doubts about whether the state’s duty to protect the public from “sexually dangerous” individuals might trump due process.

“Why doesn’t the federal government’s authority to have custody because of the criminal justice system end when the criminal justice system is exhausted?” said Chief Justice Roberts. “In other words, when the sentence is done?”

“You are talking about endangering the health and safety of people, so the government has some responsibility, doesn’t it?” countered Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

CNN normally doesn’t name victims of sex crimes, but Andrews, now a victims’ advocate, agreed to tell his story.

On the other side of the debate is the first sex offender released from Virginia’s civil commitment program, and one of just a handful nationwide.

“I served my time for what I did, and I didn’t feel like I should be incarcerated again,” said this man, who asked that his identity not be revealed for fear of retribution. “It was a scary thing to know that you could be committed to a mental institution for the rest of your life.”

The man said mandatory therapy helped him, but he thinks that could have been initiated while he was in prison.”

— DRJ

6 Responses to “US vs Comstock: Commitment of Sex Offenders”

  1. I already discussed the opinion and my thoughts about it, over at the Jury.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  2. I haven’t had a chance to read the opinion, but the story that led to the civil commitment of sex offenders and the discussion at oral argument in this case provide interesting background: […]

    You’re right, it is interesting as well as disturbing. But, it is irrelevant to the issue of whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to civilly commit the monster in question. I think Thomas is the one with the correct reading of our constitution, no matter how horrendous this individual is.

    Anon Y. Mous (5ac901)

  3. Also, there’s been a lively discussion over at Volokh about how the court’s interpretation of the Necessary + Proper Clause – using a rational basis test – suggests a willingness to find health care reform constitutional.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  4. well, i can see this being a whole lot more popular in certain circles when you substitute “tea bagger” for “sex offender”…. which is what will happen sooner or later.
    once the government has this power for one class of people, there is nothing that will stop its expansion to others.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  5. Redc1c4: it appears that the government has been exercising this power – at least, as applied to mentally ill soon-to-be-former prisoners – for decades.

    I’m not saying that the exercise of power for decades makes it constitutional; I agree with the dissent.

    But it does make the slippery-slope expansion argument a bit more difficult to believe in: there’s no sign of the expansion happening yet.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  6. I was against the Roberts nomination because I thought he’d be well to the left of Rehnquist. After a while, I thought my vindication would never come.

    It’s here. This is it. We now learn that when it comes to the Commerce Clause, John Roberts is to the left even of Anthony Kennedy.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it, this is only one issue. Only one issue of huge significance to the structural integrity of our government, but, hey, only one issue.

    Now good luck on that challenge to the constitutionality of the health-care mandate.

    Nice to see Scalia on the right side of a Commerce Clause issue, though. That hasn’t happened since the year 2000.

    Alan (07ccb5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0766 secs.