Iowa: Civil Commitment Challenge Loses
U.S. District Court Judge Mark Bennett (Northern District of Iowa) reluctantly dismissed a challenge to Iowa’s Civil Commitment program.
Civil commitment, which is a quasi-incarceration program that allows a state keepsex offenders confined after they serve their prison terms, has been challenged in a number of jurisdictions, most notably Minnesota’s program.
Recently, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Minnesota’s civil commitment program to remain intact. Minnesota’s program was far worse than Iowa’s (in the Judge’s opinion and in the opinion of experts familiar with the programs). With that; Judge Bennett was obligated to follow the 8th Circuit’s precedent and dismiss the Iowa action, which had been going on for 6 years.
His opinion states, “Like all federal trial court judges, I have an obligation to follow circuit precedent, even when I strongly disagree with it.” He also encouraged the state to incorporate changes into their program, including giving patients realistic estimates regarding the timeline for treatment and forming an independent panel to review their policies.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am truly sorry. This whole commitment thing is wrong in my opinion. Here is some food for thought. I have been trying to put these thoughts into a legal question that I think is prevalent in all civil commitment proceeding. Let me know what you think. Here it goes:
I am considering a challenge to the constitutionality of a Kansas State Statue. The initial complaint would likely involve a claim for declaratory and Injunctive relief. It is probably going to be more complicated than I realize. Nevertheless, I am going to try and articulate my legal theory for you: Supposedly, people who are civilly committed to an SVP program have to be suffering from some mental ailment that made them dangerous to either “themselves” or “other” people. I for one believe people have a constitutional right to avoid illegal confinement and should only be civilly committed if they are currently dangerous to themselves or others. The Constitution guarantees rights for all citizens, even unpopular ones. There are some people currently confined in the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program who no longer meet the legal criteria for civil commitment under Kansas law. Simply stated, many are held in custody because they were “charged” or “convicted” of a sexual offense at some point in their past life. It is my personal belief many no longer meet the criteria for commitment under the Kansas act. Here is why: current research demonstrates sex offenders are generally lower to recidivate than any other type of criminal offender. Recent research suggests as low as 6%. Currently, the Kansas legislatures have set a goal of “no new victim.” This kind of mindset is only obtainable if no persons in the Kansas program were released. Eliminating the risk by some assessment cannot legally be done with 100% certainty. I have questioned Kansas state doctors on how they determine or quantify the “degree” of dangerous a person might present to the community if released from SVP confinement. Most state doctors say they couldn’t assess or determine the “degree” of the “mental abnormality.” Instrestly, this produces a legal conundrum in as much how might any person, including state doctors demonstrate in a court proceeding that a persons “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder” remains unchanged that he is not safe for release from confinement? Persons who have been civilly committed to the Kansas program could never meet the legal definition for release. With that said, it is my argument the law is punitive, and thus, unconstitutional under Kansas V. Hendricks because the current program applies the incorrect legal standard when conducting annual reviews on patients in the program. As previously mentioned to be civilly committed, a person must meet the following criteria: (1) have a mental abnormality or personality disorder that predisposes them commitment further acts of sexual violence; and (2) must pose a “current” danger to the health and safety or others in society. Constitutional laws, as I understand it, suggests a person is entitled to release the moment they pose no danger to themselves or others. I would argue if a person is not properly evaluated according to the appropriate legal standard, but continues to be confined, would that not be punitive? Under Kansas v. Hendricks, on persons is to remain confined any longer than he suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that renders him unable to “control” his “dangerous” behavior. By operation of law, the “dangerousness” must be of a certain “degree” which in turn makes the person “dangerous” to “oneself” or “others.” My legal question is this: Is it legally permissible for state doctors to exclude from their annual examinations any assessments regarding the “degree” of the “dangerousness” a person may present to society. Said another way, how would a state doctor determine what the “degree” (or strength) of the alleged mental abnormality is when all they generally rely on is past criminal behavior to justify the diagnosis and therefore the need for continued treatment? Under Kansas law, I would argue the “degree” of the “mental abnormality” must be of “such” a “strength” that the person cannot “abstain” from further acts of sexual violence, hence makes them dangerous beyond their control. The Kansas legal standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I believe the law demands evidence of a “compulsion” that drives the behavior which makes the person dangerous to others. Simply being “charged with” or “convicted of” with a diagnosis (such as “pedophilia” or “antisocial personality disorder”) are not sufficient evidence to meet the due process requirements . . . is it?. I would kindly appreciate any comments you might have regarding this legal theory of mine. Thank you.
The first thing you have to have to pursue such an action is “legal standing.” You can’t file a suit unless the issue in question affects you personally. That’s why the ACLU, for example, has to have a client whose rights have been violated before pursuing legal remedies. There are a few exceptions to the rule, but not in the situation you are describing. We can be pretty certain that the issue has already been pursued from the same angle as you without success. Due process is defined by the legislature.
Thank you, Gerald. I appreciate your comments and couldn’t agree more legislature members do define what our due process rights are statutory. However, when it crosses the line that when the federal system should become involved. Any more today I believe federal courts take a hand off approach to state legislation. You understand what I’m trying to say here. They say legislatures are nothing but a bunch of lawyers. We all know what we think about lawyers right?
That’s why I am thankful for lawyers such as at the ACLU, who take up unpopular causes just because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t think the Founding Fathers foresaw what an industry government would become, and that so many would spend virtually their entire lives with the job title “Politician.” Yet they still insist on calling themselves “Public Servants.” How many servants expect to become millionaires in just a few short years of work?
Gerald, once again your words are impressive to me. I would like to think people who go into public service go in with the thought and conviction to help communities and people around them. Although I will say these days you have to wonder. There’s a lot of politicians that are looking for jobs and they’ll say anything to get the power. Once they have it the true nature of what this institution has become infects their good intentions. I simply do not trust our government anymore and even less when it comes to taxpayers dollars.
Maybe it’s time to put a computer on the bench, program it, and relieve human judges of the obligation to use their common sense. This judge is going along to get along. Another ‘black mark’ for our judicial/justice system.
Actually, the Judge is doing his job correctly and following the law as it is. The case can still be appealed further. His personal criticisms of the precedent can add a little weight to the appellate brief.
With some of the laws that are on the books nowadays my conscience would never let me be a judge.
Perhaps they are following the law. But I can’t help but think Charles that most of them harbor ill feelings toward convicted sex offenders. Hence we do not get many of these laws because they are motivated by political pressure and not by what the Constitution calls for. A lot of people disagree with this next statement, Charles. However, I am a firmly believe in it. That is society does not have a constitutional right to feel safe. It is only an individual who has constitutional rights. As I once read those who are willing to trade a little freedom for a little security soon find they have neither.