Civil commitment reexamined: justice for sex offenders?
Some state courts are reviewing civil commitment policies that have allowed for involuntary detainment of sex offenders deemed dangerous beyond the terms of their criminal prison sentence.
This April 19, 2010 file photo shows the Moose Lake, Minn., facility for sex offenders that was likened by offenders housed there in a lawsuit to a second prison sentence rather than the treatment program is was designed to be. Minnesota is awaiting word from a federal judge on how it must change its restrictive program for sex offenders, a long-awaited step for more than 700 offenders housed in Minnesota's two facilities.
Martiga Lohn/AP/File
For decades, 20 states across the country have upheld policies of civil commitment that allow for sexual predators or those persons categorized as 鈥渟exually dangerous鈥� to be involuntarily admitted and held indefinitely in treatment facilities, even after the offenders have completed their prison sentences. Several states are now revisiting this policy, with some declaring it unconstitutional.
While proponents deem civil commitment a necessary safeguard, opponents argue the criteria for considering someone dangerous is subjective, based on legally defined terms rather than medical science.
Civil commitment 鈥渃an provide opportunities for individuals to receive that may reduce their potential to recidivate upon release to the community, particularly offenders for whom specialized treatment was not available in the prison setting,鈥� explains the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA).
But others say civil commitment is a violation of the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause that says no one may be subject to multiple punishments for the same offense. Furthermore, in order to subject an offender to involuntary treatment, the state does not need to prove mental illness, but simply provide evidence of the individual鈥檚 鈥� from engaging in similar illegal behavior in the future,鈥� according to the website CriminalDefenseLawyer.com.
Federal law has, in the past, sided in favor of civil commitment. In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act which included the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (), establishing a basis for sex offender registry, categorizing offenders based on severity of the crime committed, and creating a nationwide sex offender database.
The US Supreme Court has also upheld the legality of civil commitment, most recently in 2010 when the court ruled in that legal outlining civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person was constitutional under the umbrella of the 鈥渘ecessary and proper鈥� clause (Article 1, Section 8).
But civil commitment is defined ultimately by the states, and some of the 20 are now revisiting the provision.
In Minnesota on Thursday, a federal judge in the St. Paul district court ordered treatment assessments on the 700 detained 鈥渢o in appropriate cases, and to begin conducting annual assessments to determine whether everyone here still meets the legal requirements for civil commitment,鈥� The New York Times reported. 聽
Missouri has also reexamined its policy. Last month, a district court judge ruled Missouri鈥檚 application of civil commitment law a violation of the 鈥渄ue process鈥� clause.
鈥淭he Constitution does not allow (Missouri officials) to impose lifetime detention on individuals who have completed their prison sentences and who to the public, no matter how heinous their past conduct,鈥� the judge said in her statement. According to the ruling, Missouri had failed to both 鈥減roperly implement any program to ensure the least restrictive environment鈥� and implement release procedures 鈥渋n the manner required by the law.鈥�
Texas is another state that reviewed their policy after the found last month that none of the detained offenders have been released, though the program began 15 years ago.
Washington State provides for annual review to 鈥渁ddress whether the committed person continues to meet the definition of a sexually violent predator, and whether conditional release to a is in the best interest of the person and conditions can be imposed that would adequately protect the community.鈥�