Is civil commitment protection, punishment, prison–or purgatory?

By Maurice Chammah….

If someone finishes a prison sentence for a violent sexual crime, but might still be dangerous, should he be released? How do you know if he’s dangerous? And when does it violate his rights to hold him?

On Monday, the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a case that stems from these questions, a challenge to a Minnesota “civil commitment” program that holds people convicted of sexual crimes long after their sentences, ostensibly for treatment. Roughly 20 programs have arisen around the country since 1990, and at first they appeared similar to the hospitals for the mentally disabled on which they were modeled. When the Minnesota program was created in 1994, patients could bring their own computer or television or game console or aquarium, they could leave with a staff escort, visiting hours lasted eight hours a day, and if their families brought groceries, they could cook in the facility, according to the original lawsuit. In theory, once you completed treatment, you would be released.

But the laws governing the program were amended, and by 2012 the two Minnesota facilities, among others around the country, looked suspiciously like prisons. Surrounded by double-razor wire and bunked in two-man cells, more than 700 “patients,” as they were still called, now wore handcuffs and leg irons when transported. Visits were limited, personal computers and televisions were no longer allowed in, and strip searches became common.

By January 2017, just one person had been fully discharged, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. At a hearing, one resident said he believed “the only way to get out is to die,” leading federal district judge Donovan Frank to declare “there is an emotional climate of despair among the facilities’ residents.”

Judge Frank ruled the laws governing the program unconstitutional two years ago, but he was overruled by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, setting up the current challenge. The legal fight is over how to interpret the constitutional right to not be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Even if the court declines to hear the case, their interest has already sparked attention from scholars and doctors, liberals and libertarians, whose briefs to the court offer a snapshot of where debates on the rights of sex offenders are likely to go in the coming years. Beyond the roughly 5,400 people committed in similar programs across the country, a ruling could have ramifications for thousands more convicted of sex offenses, who have faced increasing restrictions on where they can work, live, and travel. (The court is also considering on Monday whether to take a broad challenge to a sex offender registry law in Michigan).

“All of these cases represent a willingness of courts to examine these laws by looking through and behind the face of the laws, and examine how they are being implemented” said Eric Janus, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Minneapolis who has written amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs. “After 20 years we can’t rely on the fact that the sign on the front door says ‘treatment center’ and not ‘prison.’ ”

Deciding how to treat people based on what they might do, but haven’t yet done, may sound dystopian, but it is a theme that runs across the U.S. criminal justice system, from “risk assessment” scores in Kentucky bail hearings to Texas death penalty trials, where jurors decide whether a defendant will pose a “continuing threat to society.” The difference is that programs like the one in Minnesota are “civil,” blurring the line between punishment and treatment. (The Marshall Project looked into a New Jersey program last year.)

Janus and other scholars argue, as a legal matter, that the burden is on the state to defend why it is holding people beyond what the criminal courts have ordered. “If for no other reason than to protect the moral legitimacy of the criminal justice system, the boundaries of this ‘alternate justice system’ must be vigilantly patrolled,” he wrote to the district court judge in a brief. The emphasis on liberty has pulled in libertarian groups like the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation, who have also filed a brief stating that “sex-offender laws have bored a hole in the nation’s constitutional fabric.”

Read the remainder of the article at The Marshall Project.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.


Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #22168 Reply
      Tony From Long Island

      Judging by the two previous Supreme Court decisions on this topic, I am not optimistic. However, it has been quite a while since the visited the issue, so there might be hope.

      • #22188 Reply
        Jeremy from Indiana

        If you are talking about McKune v. Lile and Smith v. Doe, then I wouldn’t worry about those too much. Justice Kennedy is the same one who wrote the former opinion and in Packingham v. North Carolina, he showed us that he thinks quite a bit differently now. This will be a completely different battle in 2018 than it was in 2002. There is a lot more research and evidence on the subject now and the registry today is unrecognizable from the registry presented in those cases. I am cautiously optimistic that this will be the year the registry falls apart completely.

        • #22254 Reply

          Jeremy from Indiana, If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck them hey it must be a duck. I don’t see how they can keep these so called treatment prisons open, especially that they keep prisoners well passed release dates, it’s just ridiculous. The proof is on the table, they know damn well the the statistics from 10 20 or 30 years ago have drastically changed and the rcividisism lie that they keep putting into people’s heads can be seen plane as day now and they can no longer lie about it, the courts know what’s happening,
          I’m in PA and looks like a lot is happening arround the country for registered citizens thank God, but these other people of power are fighting it as well. DA Freed is asking the SCOTUS to review the PA Supreme courts decision in the cancelation of the AWA/SORNA in PA. I don’t understand how they can make PA Supreme Court change the ruling that has already been done.

    • #22331 Reply

      I am praying for all that are working to change this. It is a system that does. It work.

      • #23566 Reply
        Will Crump

        The court sided with fear and has declined to hear the case. I am not surprised because the S.C.O.T.U.S. would have went against their own previous rulings. I suppose freedom after serving time for the crime is NOT worthy of the Court’s attention or strictest scrutiny. This is really discouraging. Prejudice is so hard to overcome, especially when it’s on the part of the ones who hold all the aces.

        I wonder how much the “frightening and high” myth played into this. I also wonder how much back-room politics played a role in the Court’s decision to decline hearing the case.

Viewing 1 reply thread
Reply To: Is civil commitment protection, punishment, prison–or purgatory?
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">