In an 8-1 decision, the high court overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court that gave Andre Brigham Young a chance to show that his continued imprisonment, following the completion of his sentence 12 years ago, was unconstitutional.

Young, convicted of rape, has been held in the state of Washington's "Special Commitment Center" since the end of his prison term. State officials assert that the imprisonment of Young and others at the center in the custody of the state's department of social and health services, is a "civil" detention, not a criminal one.

Young charged that his confinement at the facility--in the name of "treating" him for psychiatric problems--is punitive and thus constitutes a second criminal sentence. He demanded to be released on the ground of double jeopardy--being put on trial twice for the same offense--which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling started with the premise that Young's detention was like the civil commitment of the mentally ill. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in the majority opinion, declared that "an act, found to be civil, cannot be deemed punitive 'as applied' to a single individual."

In a lone dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens defended Young's right to have his "detailed allegations" of double jeopardy heard. If proved, he wrote, the allegations would establish that those detained after serving their sentences "are treated like those imprisoned for violations of Washington's criminal laws, but that, in many respects, they receive significantly worse treatment."

Beginning in 1990 a number of states began adopting "civil commitment" laws for sex offenders, usually justifying their moves by seizing on a gruesome crime as depicting those arrested as "sexual predators." Such laws now exist in 16 states.

Some defenders of civil liberties have opposed such measures, explaining that they represent unconstitutional punishment of people who have already served out their sentences.

In 1997 the Supreme Court ruled that a Kansas law modeled on the Washington law imposed "civil confinement" and was not double jeopardy. That ruling, however, left open the possibility that a prisoner could argue that the application of the law was in fact punitive. The ruling on Young's case all but closed that door.

Of the 894 people involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitals after serving out sentences for sex crimes, only 44 have been judged "cured" by authorities and released. The "cure" often involves the person "owning up" to the charges for which they were convicted and being subjected to other degrading conditions.

A recent Washington Post article reported that, as "alternatives" to post-prison detainment, some state governments are using 24-hour satellite tracking of those who have completed their sentences or regular, compulsory lie-detector tests.

Under the tracking program, the Post reported, the person on parole is required to wear an anklet that cannot be removed and is attached to a small satellite transmitter. A private satellite-monitoring company, contracted by the state, notifies authorities "if the criminal is not where he is supposed to be--for example, at work by 8 a.m."

The polygraph tests, the article further explains, "help agents probe the minds of sexual predators, eliciting honest answers to questions about improper thoughts" or activities the authorities deem threatening.
 
 
Related article:
'Sex offender' ruling targets rights  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home