Civil Commitment

From Universal Hub: Court to feds: You can lock up deviants past their sentencing date, but don't abuse the privilege

Civil Commitment is a scary thing. Stemming from the Adam Walsh Act, it allows the government to hold a person convicted of a sex offense after their sentence is up. It almost happened to me. If they designate you a "Sexually Dangerous Person" (SDP), when your sentence is up, you don't go home. Instead, you get sent to another prison where you are held until you are no longer considered an SDP. About a month before my release from jail, they told me they were going to start civil commitment proceedings against me. I was shocked and terrified. They wouldn't even be starting the actual proceedings until after my release date, so, even if I beat the SDP label, I would still be held past my release date. Luckily, about a week and a half before my release date, they told me they changed their mind and weren't proceeding. But damn was it scary.

According to the aforementioned article, and the actual ruling, the Federal court has upheld civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Act. The case they are ruling on seems pretty clear cut that they defendant is an SDP, but that's not the point. His served the time that was handed down to him by the court. He earned his good time. He has not committed another crime. Yet, he is still locked up.

Notice that it is called civil commitment. If you know a little bit about the American legal system, you know that the burden of proof in a civil case is only "clear and convincing evidence" rather than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". So, because civil commitment is a civil proceeding, the prosecutors only need to give convincing evidence, they don't need to prove their case. According to the ruling of this case (in which they are quoting another case), "civil commitment can in no sense be equated to a criminal prosecution". Are you kidding me? Since when can you lock someone up for a civil offense? If I sue someone in court, I am awarded damages (i.e. money). There is no incarceration. However, with "civil" commitment, people are being incarcerated. Sounds like a criminal prosecution to me.

The court's ruling isn't all more-of-the-same, though.

This does not excuse what may be a pattern in which the government certifies prisoners as sexually dangerous mere days before their scheduled release, thereby guaranteeing that they will be held for an extended period beyond that date even if there is little basis for the charge. Any such practice is a result of improper administration, not statutory command.

Here, the court is basically telling the government to stop playing games with prisoners' releases by filing SDP motions so late that the motion can not be held before the prisoners' release date and ensuring that he is not released on time, even if the government has no case.

Also in the court's concurring opinion, Judge LaPlante weighs in:

I have serious concerns about whether the Walsh Act is necessary and proper to the exercise of Congress’s enumerated powers.

While he concurs with the court's opinion based soley on the case at hand, he does question the law's constitutionality.