Court rules federal civil commitment law for sex offenders unconstitutional
-- A federal appeals court today held that the federal civil commitment law for sex offenders was unconstitutional and that alleged victims of abuse at the hands of a former Somali official may sue him.
In a North Carolina case, a three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by a federal judge in Raleigh that a provision of a 2006 federal law on civil commitment intruded on powers the Constitution reserves for states.
The federal law, like those in Virginia and many other states, permits sex offenders still believed to be dangerous to be civilly committed and held for treatment after their prison terms are over.
"The Constitution does not empower the federal government to confine a person solely because of asserted 'sexual dangerousness' when the Government need not allege (let alone prove) that this 'dangerousness' violates any federal law," ruled the court.
Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond analyst, said he does not believe the decision has any effect on Virginia's or any other state civil commitment law. It is believed to be the first time a federal appeals court has taken up the matter.
In the Somali case, another three-judge panel overruled U.S. District judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who ruled that Mohamed Ali Samantar, Somali's minister of defense from January 1980 to December, 1986, could not be sued because of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The plaintiffs include three who allege they were brutalized. Others are representatives of people who were killed. The appeals court ruled that the immunities act did not apply to individuals and sent the case back to Brinkema.
Contact Frank Green at (804) 649-6340 or .
Reader Reactions
WOW! Hate is a powerful word! I do understand because I used to believe the same thing.
However, once I understood the research, my mind was changed. I realized that if you deny the constitution for one, you deny it for all. The same with the Bill of rights.
It’s a fact that 95% of first time sex offenders NEVER commit a second offense.
and that 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by individuals who are NOT on the registry. They consist of family members such as parents, relatives and friends of the family. In other words, “stranger danger” is the rare thing that happens.
With all the laws that have been written. NOT ONE has been written that has to do with PREVENTION. Not one.
Incest and friends of the family are by far the largest segment of offenders. It appears that once caught, the shame and realization of what they did, has a positive effect in that, even without treatment they never reoffend.
Why waste all these resources on them. Those who really need to be watched are those who did not know their victims, the violent offender and the repeat offender. If we concentrated on them, we would be much more effective with our laws.
As it stands, the laws as they are written have the reverse effect of children. Studies say that these laws actually endanger children and society.
Prevention is the real key to reducing acts against children.
We have laws against robbing banks. Does that stop bank robbers? If we made a bank robber reside out side of 2000 feet from a bank, will that prevent that person from robbing a bank? Of course not. Silly isn’t it?
Well, the same goes for these sex offender residency laws. Here is a brand new study:
“Residential proximity to schools and daycare centers: Influence on sex offense recidivism.“ and can be found here:
We need solutions that actually protect children, not knee jerk laws that “Do More Harm than Good.“
RE: ( WWG )
You said you absolutely hate all sex offenders…
So, let me clarify. You hate:
The 16 year old boy, who meets a girl at a party who says she is 16, he has sex with her and then later he is arrested and made a Lifetime Sex Offender, Child Predator because the girl turns out to be 13?
You hate the person labeled sex offender now, because of the new Unconstitutional Retroactive application of the Federal Adam Walsh Act which makes a person who committed a sex crime, like an 18 year old who got caught having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend 30 years ago. This man served his time and now has teen age children. But all of a sudden, he is labeled a sex offender and his life, his children’s lives and the life of his wife is ruined for a crime committed and served 30 years ago?
You think these people should be shot in the back of the head?
Wake up, not everyone who is labeled a sex offender by these outlandish, ignorant laws is a Pedophile or Rapist.
Your comment was very immature and blatantly ignorant.
That being said with all due respect and humility.
Just like white people were programed by their parents to hate negros and they were taught to call them N-word You too have been programed by the media to think Everyone who is labeled a Sex Offender is a dangerous Pedophile or Rapist so I understand your remark.
Wait till your teen boy or girl is charged and convicted as a sex offender for simply sending a nude photo to their friends from their computer or cell phone… and they are labeled a Child Sexual Predator for LIFE for just sending a nude photo.
You will wake up then.
News and Videos http://www.cfcamerica.org
Citizens for Legislative Change, America http://www.cfcamerica.org
In America, we have always had this little thing called the United States Constitution.
Up until the George Bush Era, that document held meaning to the lives of every American.
During the George Bush Era, the constitution has been effectively thrown out.
Many laws taking away the constitutional rights of U.S. Citizens were enacted and put into place.
Thousands have been persecuted and the lives of whole families, men, women and children are continually being ruined by the Unconstitutional laws which are in place all across the nation.
These laws, which were put into place during the Bush Administration need to be thrown out and our Constitution needs to be restored.
Thank you for this article.
As much as I absolutely hate sex offenders - and in particular - child sex offenders, I have to agree with this ruling. If someone has served their sentence for their crime, they have served the sentence, period. The problem is the *sentence*. If the offender is deemed to be that much of a danger to our society… Why do we not execute these SOB’s? Preferably, by a single gunshot to the back of the head.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement