Monday
May172010
Supreme Court Upholds Extended Detention Of Sexually Violent Criminals
Monday, May 17, 2010 at 3:05PM
In a 7–2 decision today, the Supreme Court said that Congress was acting within its constitutional powers when it authorized the continued detention of sexually dangerous criminals even after their prison terms had ended.
The law allows the Bureau of Prisons to hold a prisoner past the scheduled date of release if the government certifies that the prisoner has engaged in sexually violent conduct or child molestation, currently suffers from a serious mental illness and is sexually dangerous to others.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, characterized the law as a continuation of the government's efforts to provide for public safety by ordering that mentally ill people be committed. Breyer noted that many of the people covered by the law being challenged would probably have been covered under an older law, passed in 1949.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented, arguing that this kind of commitment is better left to regulation by the states rather than the federal government.
The law allows the Bureau of Prisons to hold a prisoner past the scheduled date of release if the government certifies that the prisoner has engaged in sexually violent conduct or child molestation, currently suffers from a serious mental illness and is sexually dangerous to others.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, characterized the law as a continuation of the government's efforts to provide for public safety by ordering that mentally ill people be committed. Breyer noted that many of the people covered by the law being challenged would probably have been covered under an older law, passed in 1949.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented, arguing that this kind of commitment is better left to regulation by the states rather than the federal government.
Reader Comments (1)
It is a rare day when I find myself agreeing with Justices Thomas and Alito, and this is one of those days. In my opinion, with this decision, the majority has overstepped the bounds of the federal/states relationship. The Supreme Court is usually the final arbiter of the constitutional rights of the individual ... and of the several states. They usually defend the freedoms of the people against the "state." In this instance they have defined a particular category of offense that should be treated differently than all others. And, they have defended the rights of the government (via the Bureau of Prisons!) to hold a person indefinitely even after the sentence has been served. Why? Because it has to do with ... sex! There are plenty of methods at the state level for declaring a person mentally ill and in need of separation from society. There are also many reasons for that power to be invoked. But when sex is involved, all of that is disregarded. Why?