Archive for May 17, 2010

Sex-Offender Commitment Law Upheld by U.S. High Court

May 17, 2010 Comments off Sex-Offender Commitment Law Upheld by U.S. High Court.

Unbelievably, SCOTUS ruled today that the US government now has the power to indefinitely imprison its citizens beyond their sentences. This is a dangerous affront to our constitutional rights and gives the federal government virtually unlimited power to imprison anyone beyond their due process sentence for almost any reason.

The Supreme Court upheld a federal law that allows the civil commitment of “sexually dangerous” people, including those whose federal prison terms have expired.

The justices, voting 7-2, today ruled that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in enacting the 2006 measure, which affects people already in federal custody.

The law, part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was challenged by five men held under it. Four of them have completed prison sentences for sex crimes, while the fifth was held incompetent to stand trial on charges of sexually abusing a child. They are being held in a treatment facility in Butner, North Carolina.

Before the law’s enactment, the federal government’s civil commitment power covered people in U.S. custody who were found incompetent to stand trial, found not guilty by reason of insanity or determined after conviction to be mentally ill.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Thomas said the majority “comes perilously close to transforming the necessary and proper clause into a basis for the federal police power that we have always rejected.”

The case is United States v. Comstock, 08-1224.

Adam Walsh Act Changes are a Win for States

May 17, 2010 Comments off Adam Walsh Act changes are a win for states.

The U.S. Justice Department has proposed major regulatory changes to the Adam Walsh Act, a 2006 federal law requiring all states to crack down on sex offenders by July or risk losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant money.

The proposed changes, which were posted in the Federal Register on Friday (May 14) and face a two-month public comment period, address some of the most controversial provisions of the law, which many states have criticized as cost-prohibitive and overly strict.

As Stateline has reported, however, many states disagree with key provisions of the law that they see as too strict, including a stipulation that some juvenile sex offenders as young as 14 be placed on public registries. In Delaware, as the Wilmington News-Journal recently reported, some offenders as young as 9 are listed on the public sex offender Web site. Youth advocates and others have said that posting images and personal information of juveniles can lead to harassment, and that juveniles should not be grouped with more serious, adult criminals. The changes proposed Friday give states the discretion to decide if they want to include juveniles on their registries.

Under another proposed change, sex offenders whose crimes pre-dated the Adam Walsh Act, and who have exited the justice system, would not be forced to abide by its registration requirements. While courts have found the provision constitutional — holding that registration is not a new criminal penalty but a civil, regulatory requirement instead — states have argued that it is overly burdensome to track down and register sex offenders who already have served their time and re-joined the population. The Justice Department recognized that concern, giving states “greater latitude” not to register certain offenders. (This does not mean that states will remove retro-activity from their laws, but only that the AWA requirements will allow them to do so if they choose. States like Ohio, which already require past offenders to register would have to change their laws if they choose to remove past offenders from the registries….unlikely in this political climate)

“It may not be possible for jurisdictions to identify and register all sex offenders who fall within the (Adam Walsh Act) registration categories, particularly where they have left the justice system and merged into the general population long ago,” the new rules say.

Only one state — Ohio — has complied with the Adam Walsh Act so far. Several others have asked for a one-year extension to meet the law’s demands. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder already has granted all states a one-year extension, underscoring the difficulty states have had in complying with the law.

While there is broad political agreement on the overall goals of the Adam Walsh Act, the changes proposed Friday show that states’ concerns are being heard in Washington, D.C. Members of Congress also have acknowledged that they may have overreached with the legislation.