DC- Chief justice blocks release of sex offenders

Interesting action today: First see SCOTUS Blog, then commentary and court order below:

See Also:
Sex Crimes
Sentencing Law & Policy

4-3-2009 Washington DC:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts has granted the Obama administration's request to the Supreme Court to block the release of certain sex offenders who have completed their federal prison terms.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va.(USA-v-Comstock, 1-9-09, No. 06-7671), had earlier invalidated a law allowing the indefinite commitment of "sexually dangerous" prison inmates.

Roberts, in an order Friday, says as many as 77 inmates can continue to be held at a prison in North Carolina at least until the high decides whether to hear the administration's appeal of a ruling by the federal appeals court.

The Justice Department said the sex offenders could have been released as early as next week without the court's intervention.

If they were released, it would be in a state where there is a civil commitment hearing as the Bureau of Prisons has been moving these offenders to states where civil commitment is possible. Therefore, a state hearing would be necessary before release. Something is fishy here, someone is jumping the gun...

"That would pose a significant risk to the public and constitute a significant harm to the interests of the United States," Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote in court papers filed Friday.

It is possible, however, that state laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders could be used to re-imprison the men.

Therein is the problem with Chief Justice Roberts' Order, if there is a remedy then the appeal is not ripe for the court to hear. In other words, if those states have not heard these cases (civil commitment hearings) then what gives the US Supreme court the right to jump in this mess EARLY?

The administration is appealing a ruling of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing for indefinite commitment of sex offenders.

The challenge to the law was brought by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but the government determined that they would be at risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.

This could be the problem, the government has delayed releasing these men -over two years held without a hearing- and now these men would have to be released because of the untimely action of the government. Well, in other similar cases, the court said TOUGH LUCK release the men. Its kinda like a right to a speedy trial... This all sounds too familiar like what other detainees were held where was that???

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse, but declared incompetent to stand trial.

Civil commitment was authorized by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President George W. Bush signed in July 2006.

AWA (i.e. Congress) may have authorized civil commitment, but there is a little problem called the 10th Amendment. i.e. the Federal Government cannot do what the U.S. Constitution says is the job of the state!

The act, named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" television host John Walsh, also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions were not affected by the ruling.

The administration is arguing that the law does not violate the Constitution and was well within Congress' power. ..News Source.. by AP


==========================================
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 08A863 (08-1224)
UNITED STATES, Applicant,
v.
GRAYDON EARL COMSTOCK, JR., ET AL.

O R D E R

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of the Solicitor General,

IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, case No. 07-7671, is hereby stayed pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. See Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 468 U. S. 1323 (1984) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers) (“The presumption of constitutionality which attaches to every Act of Congress is not merely a factor to be considered in evaluating success on the merits, but an equity to be considered in favor of applicants in balancing hardships”). Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

/s/ John G. Roberts, Jr.
Chief Justice of the United States
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2009.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The Adam Walsh Act, Civil Commitment Portion, Held Unconstitutional by 4th Cir Court of Appeals

Folks may remember the following news article (from Sep't 2007) which showed a Federal District Court finding that, the Adam Walsh Act's -civil commitment portion- was held "Unconstitutional" by that District Court. Since that time the case was appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, well today 1-8-2009 the 4th Circuit held that Congress Exceeded its Authority and therefore that portion of AWA is unconstitutional. The decision (USA -v- Comstock) is in our SO-News Group's "Files" area if you want to read it. It will be interesting to see IF IF IF this case goes to the U.S. Supreme court.

1-8-2009 North Carolina:

Sex-crime terms have a limit 9-13-2007

A law making it possible to hold 'sexually dangerous' criminals past release dates is ruled unconstitutional

RALEIGH -- The federal government cannot keep sexual predators locked up beyond their scheduled release dates, according to a ruling by a federal judge.

The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge W. Earl Britt declared unconstitutional part of a law approved in July 2006 with much fanfare.

The 59-page ruling, issued last week at the Raleigh federal courthouse, stopped the government's attempt to keep five "sexually dangerous" men away from the public through a process known as civil commitment, which allows a person to be held past his incarceration with the intention of rehabilitation.

"The court concludes that civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons ... is not a necessary and proper extension of Congress' power," Britt wrote.

Supporters say civil commitment is a way to ensure that extremely dangerous sexual predators won't be able to attack again. Critics, however, question the government's right to keep a person imprisoned indefinitely on the suspicion that he might commit a crime.

Most violent sex offenses are handled at the state level and 20 states run programs in which sexual predators are held indefinitely or until they're no longer considered dangerous. The federal government's attempt at civil commitment has been going on only a year. No federal inmates have actually been committed, but at least 57 face the possibility.

Britt's ruling affected only the five men, who are housed at the federal corrections complex in Butner, 35 miles north of Raleigh and the planned home of the civil commitment program. It might have larger implications for other federal inmates, said S. Elizabeth Gibson, a law professor at UNC-Chapel Hill.

"It would be a precedent that other courts might look to," she said.

The judge's order addresses provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which was named in honor of the murdered son of "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh. At the time the law passed, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch called it "the most comprehensive child crimes and protection bill in our nation's history."

"When a child's life or innocence is taken it is a terrible loss -- it's an act of unforgivable cruelty," President Bush said when signing the bill.

In his lengthy order, Britt focused on the civil commitment program outlined in the law. The act allows the Federal Bureau of Prisons to declare a person "sexually dangerous" and then allows the government to ask a federal judge to order the person committed.

Britt ruled that Congress did not have the constitutional powers to order inmates held for violent crimes that, if committed, would fall under the jurisdiction of state courts.

The public defender's office, which represented all five men against the government's attempts to hold them beyond their prison terms, declined to comment on Britt's ruling.

The prisoners -- Graydon Comstock, Shane Catron, Thomas Matherly, Marvin Vigil and Markis Revland -- were still being held Wednesday at the federal prison complex in Butner while the U.S. Attorney's Office decides whether to appeal Britt's ruling.

Since 2006, the federal Bureau of Prisons has certified 57 people as sexually dangerous, said Traci Billingsley, a spokeswoman. All are in the midst of legal proceedings and none has had a judge rule against him, she said. The federal prison system plans to house the sex offenders at its facility in Butner if a judge does commit them, she said.

Britt's ruling is not expected to have any effect on the states that house an estimated 2,700 people who have been civilly committed after their prison sentences on sex crimes ended. North Carolina is not among those states.

Bruce Winick, a University of Miami law professor who has written extensively on the subject, is critical of civil commitment proceedings. Instead of telling sexual offenders that they've done something wrong, it gives the impression that the person is suffering from a mental deficiency or illness, Winick said. That reinforces the offenders' beliefs that he had no choice but to commit the crime.

"It sort of assumes that these people are mentally ill," he said. "They are, in my view, just bad people." ..News Source.. by Sarah Ovaska - Staff Writer


See also: Court strikes down federal sex offender law

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...