creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum
26 Nov 2014
Why Michael Brown's Killer Would Have Been Acquitted: Conflicting Witness Accounts and Ambiguous Physical Evidence Provide Plenty of Room for Reasonable Doubt

Given the contested circumstances of Michael Brown's death, it is understandable that many people were … Read More.

19 Nov 2014
Bulldoze First, Answer Questions Later: A New Jersey Ruling Invites Eminent Domain Abuse

Two years ago, New Jersey's Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) approved something called the … Read More.

12 Nov 2014
District of Cannabis: How Will Congress Respond to Marijuana Legalization in the Nation's Capital?

Of the three jurisdictions where voters approved marijuana legalization last week, Washington, D.C., is the … Read More.

Constitutionally Dangerous

Comment

It was bad enough when states began locking people up because of crimes they might commit in the future. Then, in 2006, Congress copied the idea, enacting a law that allows the indefinite civil commitment of federal prisoners who have completed their sentences but are deemed "sexually dangerous."

In upholding that policy on Monday, the Supreme Court not only blessed yet another use of psychiatry to escape the safeguards of our criminal justice system by disguising punishment as treatment — it also encouraged Congress to pile one dubious assertion of power on top of another until the tottering tower is tall enough to surmount the fence erected by the Constitution.

Opponents of preventive detention for convicts who have served their time argue that it violates the right to due process, the guarantee against double jeopardy and the ban on ex post facto laws. Although a 1997 decision upholding a Kansas civil commitment law suggests the Supreme Court is not receptive to such arguments, this week's ruling did not address them. Instead, it dealt with the question of whether the federal government, as opposed to the states, has the authority to commit "sexually dangerous" prisoners who would otherwise be released.

The seven-justice majority concluded that it does, citing the Necessary and Proper Clause, which authorizes Congress "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" its enumerated powers. The Court said the civil commitment law is justified by the criminal statutes under which federal prisoners are convicted, which are in turn justified by specific congressional powers.

One problem with this argument is that Congress has federalized a wide range of offenses, including many already addressed by state laws, based on thin or nonexistent constitutional pretexts. Three of the prisoners in this case, for example, were convicted of possessing child pornography, which is a federal offense when the material "has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or ...

was produced using materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported, by any means including by computer." In other words: always.

The newly minted "hate crime" law likewise federalizes offenses based on absurdly attenuated links to interstate commerce. If a misogynist uses a knife manufactured in another state to rape a woman, that's enough to make it a federal crime.

Even if we assume the validity of such laws, Justice Clarence Thomas notes in a dissent joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, civil commitment does not carry them into execution, as required by the Necessary and Proper Clause. The criminal statute has been fully executed at the point where someone convicted of violating it completes the sentence it prescribes, which is precisely when civil commitment takes effect.

Continued confinement, Thomas notes, "is aimed at protecting society from acts of sexual violence," not at "'carrying into execution' any enumerated power." That point is reinforced by the fact that one-fifth of the prisoners whom the government has identified as "sexually dangerous" were never convicted of a federal crime involving sexual violence. Even someone convicted of mail fraud or tax evasion could be put in this category.

Furthermore, Thomas writes, "the definition of a 'sexually dangerous person' ... does not require the court to find that the person is likely to violate a law executing an enumerated power in the future." The commitment law therefore is only tenuously related to federal criminal statutes, which themselves may be only tenuously related to an enumerated power.

Thomas warns that the majority's opinion, which requires no more than a "rational" connection between a federal law and an enumerated power, "comes perilously close to transforming the Necessary and Proper Clause" into a rationale for the general police power that the Constitution reserves to the states. "The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it," he writes. Unfortunately, this will be news to most members of Congress.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
For Jacob Sullum,

I am not sure how you can be so un-enlightened, I think my dog knows that sexual predators, pedophiles, serial rapists, and Hannibel Lechtor's cannot be cured. Locking them up and keeping them away from my children is great, the longer the better. I have no interest in their constitutional rights, just as I have no interest in the legal rights of any terrorists or persons who wish harm on America. And guess what? I am a screaming, left wing, wingnut liberal, the only good pedophile is a dead one. Maybe you should watch more Law and Order SVU episodes, which takes it's stories from actual New York headlines. I have a suggestion, let them serve their legal sentence, then release them to live in your immediate neighborhod. How is that for a compromise? Fair enough?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Marsha
Wed May 19, 2010 2:47 PM
For Jacob Sullum,

I am not sure how you can be so un-enlightened, I think my dog knows that sexual predators, pedophiles, serial rapists, and Hannibel Lechtor's cannot be cured. Locking them up and keeping them away from my children is great, the longer the better. I have no interest in their constitutional rights, just as I have no interest in the legal rights of any terrorists or persons who wish harm on America. And guess what? I am a screaming, left wing, wingnut liberal, the only good pedophile is a dead one. Maybe you should watch more Law and Order SVU episodes, which takes it's stories from actual New York headlines. I have a suggestion, let them serve their legal sentence, then release them to live in your immediate neighborhod. How is that for a compromise? Fair enough?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Marsha
Wed May 19, 2010 2:48 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Jacob Sullum
Nov. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Michael Barone
Michael BaroneUpdated 28 Nov 2014
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 27 Nov 2014
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 27 Nov 2014

27 Aug 2008 MADD Logic

9 Apr 2014 Free Speech vs. the Collective

20 Feb 2013 Cracking the Tax Code: Reform Should Make the Law Simpler, Not More Complicated