The US Supreme Court has upheld a 2006 law that
allows for the federal government to imprison sex offenders beyond
their sentences if they’re deemed “sexually
dangerous.”
Sound familiar? That’s because Washington was the vanguard in
sex offender confinement with its passage of the Community
Protection Act of 1990. That state law, along with creating a
registration and community
notification system for sex offenders, also set the stage for
the state’s Special Confinement
Center on McNeil Island — a place that holds those deemed
“sexual violent
predators,” indefinitely after they serve their prison
time.
From what I’ve read, there isn’t that much different about the
federal
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and Washington
state’s law. The federal Walsh Act allows a judge to determine if a
person should be held past their sentence; our state law allows for
a kind of jury trial to determine if they should be confined
indefinitely.
But I think the US Supreme Court’s overwhelming
7-2 decision puts more weight behind the Washington state
law.
Here’s part of the decision, courtesy of the
Christian Science Monitor:
“The statute is a ‘necessary
and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that
permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their
violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for
those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not
imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of
others,” Justice (Stephen)
Breyer wrote.
But here’s what I see as the most important aspect. Like
Washington state’s law, it seemed Breyer — and U.S. Solicitor General
Elena Kagan, a supreme court nominee who argued the
government’s position — believe sex offenders are as great a risk
to public health as a disease outbreak.
From the
Washington Post:
Kagan in January compared the government’s power to commit
sexual predators to its power to quarantine federal inmates whose
sentences have expired but have a highly contagious and deadly
disease.
“Would anybody say that the federal government would not have
Article I power to effect that kind of public safety measure? And
the exact same thing is true here. This is exactly what Congress is
doing here,” she said.
But not so fast, wrote Clarence Thomas,
whose overarching fear seemed to be the idea of a national police
force — an overreach by the federal government in his mind.
From the Monitor:
“Protecting society from violent sexual offenders is certainly
an important end,” Thomas wrote. “But the Constitution does not
vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad
act that might befall it.”
Share on Facebook