EDITORIAL: Court can't dodge offenders' rights forever

6-1-2010 Iowa:

In a little-noted decision May 17, the U.S. Supreme Court drove another nail into the coffin of states' rights. Unfortunately, it failed to address questions about convicted offenders' rights.

The court in United States v. Graydon Earl Comstock Jr. upheld the federal government's authority to hold prison inmates indefinitely, even after their criminal sentences have expired, if they are considered at risk of committing sex crimes in the future. Amid the lengthy discussion of state-versus-federal authority in this ruling, the court did not say whether these civil commitments violate the rights of criminal offenders. That is the bigger issue, and one the court must eventually confront.

The 7-2 ruling does, however, brush aside the argument that the civil commitments exceed the constitutional authority of the federal government.

The lack of reaction to the ruling is somewhat surprising, given the resurgent states'-rights sentiment on the tea party circuit. Indeed, there is a belief among many states - most recently fueled by the health care law - that it's time to rebel against federal encroachment on the rights of the states to govern themselves.

The Constitution contains a specific list of powers for the federal government, and the rest are reserved exclusively to the states. The Constitution, of course, says nothing about indefinite civil commitments, but the court explained that the Constitution also says Congress has the power to make laws that are "necessary and proper" to execute the enumerated powers. Thus, the authority to punish crimes (an enumerated power) includes the authority to order civil commitments to prevent crimes.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a well-argued dissent, makes a case for the opposite result. But he found only one other member of the court (Justice Antonin Scalia) who agreed. Thus, a solid majority of the court - both conservative and liberal justices - is not prepared to jump on the states'-rights bandwagon.

Meanwhile, the Comstock ruling avoided questions about whether the practice of holding potential criminals violates the constitutional rights of those detained. It seems to contradict American principles of justice to imprison people for crimes they might commit in the future, but the court has thus far declined invitations to strike down the practice as unconstitutional.

Iowa, among other states, uses civil commitments to keep some convicted child-sex offenders confined after completion of their criminal sentences. This is based on a premise that "sexually violent predators" may be cured through intensive psychological treatment, but it is not clear that treatment works. And the inmates selected for commitment were initially held in prison confinement, which suggested they were being punished. That changed after U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt, in 2004, ruled that such "punitive" detention conditions are illegal. The state has since moved the men to less restrictive facilities.

There will be other appeals as the numbers of civil commitments increase in state and the federal prisons.

The court should carefully consider whether these commitments are in fact intended to change the lives of sex offenders or just excuses to lock up people indefinitely. ..Opinion of.. DeMoines Register.com