• Home
  • News
  • Appeals Court Strikes Down US Civil Commitment Law for Sexually Dangerous

Constitutional Law

Appeals Court Strikes Down US Civil Commitment Law for Sexually Dangerous

Posted Jan 9, 2009 8:28 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A federal appeals court has struck down a 2006 federal law providing for indefinite civil commitment of sexually dangerous inmates after their prison terms end.

The Richmond, Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Congress intruded on powers reserved for the states, report the Associated Press and the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The Jan. 8 opinion was the first by a federal appeals court to address the question. It found that Congress did not have power to enact the law under either the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause.

The statute allowed the attorney general to obtain a stay prolonging federal detention with a certification alleging sexual dangerousness; no evidence or preliminary showing is required, according to the opinion (PDF posted by AP) by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz. A federal court then rules on the government’s petition using a clear and convincing evidence standard.

"The Constitution does not empower the federal government to confine a person solely because of asserted 'sexual dangerousness' when the government need not allege (let alone prove) that this 'dangerousness' violates any federal law," Motz wrote.

Motz said federal authorities were still free to contact state officials about potentially dangerous inmates about to be released. State officials could then bring their own civil commitment proceedings.

“Congress' perceived need for the sort of civil commitment statute at issue here does not create constitutional power where none exists," Motz wrote. "Congress must instead seek alternative, constitutional means of achieving what may well be commendable objectives."

Comments

1.

Janet Drennan
Jan 9, 2009 5:14 PM CST

I am disturbed by the definitions given to sexual offenders.  A friend was approached on an adult chat line by someone saying they were 29.  This charade went on for weeks then she told him she was 14 years old.  By this time and after engaging in explicit conversation, he did not know whether to believe her or not.  She lived 100 miles away, he never had face-to-face contact with her, and he became one of about 5 different men that she had pulled this scam on and her father consequently sued for a large sum of money.  I disagree with his being labeled as a sex offender; rather, I feel he was part of a scam carried out by this girl and her father.  He is a retired school teacher with an unblemished record, not even a speeding ticket, was drawn into this by someone that he now cannot even get the real name of her father nor any other facts in his case.  He was sentenced to 48 months and, unlike the law enforcement officer (sheriff) in Mendenhall , MS who admittedly carried on a long-term sexual relationship with a 14 year old, he has to register as a sex offender.  Why are the rules different depending on WHO you are?? and how much influence you have in your local area??  This is very disturbing to me as well as unjust and unfair.  Thanks, Just needed to get that out.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.