Supreme Court of the United States Hears Arguments on the Detainment of Sexual Predators

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in United States v. Comstock, an appeal brought by government prosecutors against four defendants who had completed their prison sentences for possession of child pornography and/or sexual abuse of a minor, but were still being held as “sexually dangerous.” The four defendants were arrested, charged and convicted under the Adam Walsh Act; legislation enacted in 2006 which increases penalties for certain crimes against minors, including child pornography. Comstock only challenges the provision of the legislation which allows for the indefinite detainment of those deemed sexually dangerous.

Government prosecutors argued vehemently that the Government has a responsibility to ensure sexual predators are not released into the public, in a society where the recidivism rate for sexual offenses remains high. Precedent was argued, in that inmates who suffer from highly contagious diseases have had their confinement extended beyond their sentences due to the danger they pose to outside society. A comparison was made between communicable diseases and sexual deviation which prosecutors argued is a mental illness. According to federal prosecutor Elena Kagan, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure imprisoned individuals are released responsibly into society.

Many were shocked by the Supreme Court’s choosing to hear the appeal in Comstock, as lower courts had ruled that continued confinement of federal inmates, who have completed their sentences, overstepped the government’s authority. The government cannot constitutionally detain citizens due to fear they will commit a crime without evidence to justify their suspicions. Mental illness alone cannot be grounds for confinement without some showing of a risk posed by the defendant. Other constitutional issues to be considered are potential violations of the Bill of Rights, for example the Fourth Amendment right to due process and the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A criminal sentence is generally determined based on established statutory guidelines. Many mitigating and aggravating factors are considered when determining the sentence of a convicted defendant. A Supreme Court reversal of the lower courts’ decisions in Comstock would essentially void the sentencing process, as defendants who complete their mandated sentences could suffer further confinement regardless of the term of imprisonment they were given. Conceivably, a convicted sex offender, sentenced to five years imprisonment, could serve a life sentence based on their perceived threat to society upon release. Justice Scalia went as far as to say that allowing such practice is a recipe for “the federal government taking over everything.”

Those convicted of crimes are still subject to the protections of the Constitution of the United States. An experienced criminal defense attorney protects a defendant’s rights during legal proceedings, while imprisoned and beyond. If you have been charged with, or convicted of a sexual offense, you still have constitutionally protected rights which the Law Offices of Marc Neff will ensure are not infringed upon. For a confidential consultation, please contact our office at 215-563-9800 or via email at marc@nefflawoffices.com.