Sexually Dangerous Persons Can't Be Held

Story >

Sexually Dangerous Persons Can't Be Held

Special Report - October 11, 2007
In an opinion filed on September 7, 2007, Judge Earl Britt of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ruled that the federal government has no constitutional authority to indefinitely institutionalize sexual predators who might pose a danger to society or who cannot control their behavior. The Court found unconstitutional the civil commitment provision of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4248), which allows the federal government to commit indefinitely “sexually dangerous persons.” Specifically, the law applies to federal prisoners whose sentences are about to expire, persons found to be incompetent to stand trial, and persons against whom all criminal charges have been dismissed solely for reasons relating to their mental condition. Under this provision in the Walsh Act, if a court finds “by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a sexually dangerous person,” the court must commit the person until “the person’s condition is such that he is no longer sexually dangerous to others.” A person is “sexually dangerous to others” if the “person suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder as a result of which he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.”

In striking the civil commitment provision, the federal District Court based its decision on the fact there was no nexus between the federal commitment provision and the threat that a federal crime would be committed. The Court noted that the power to criminalize sexual violence is reserved to the states and that unless there is a legitimate federal interest, the federal government cannot exercise that power. “Civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons… is not a necessary and proper extension of Congress’ power to prosecute federal crimes,” the Court said, because it is highly likely that any sexual crimes committed by such a person would constitute state crimes, not federal crimes. The Court explained that the federal government has very limited authority to criminalize sexually violent conduct. It concluded: “Neither the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, nor any other authority suggested, provide Congress with the power to enact §4248 as it pertains to individuals previously committed…, to prisoners whose sentences are about to expire, or to people in federal custody against whom all criminal charges are dropped based on mental condition.” The decision is limited to the civil commitment provisions of the Walsh Act and does not affect the remaining provisions.