Unfortunately, it has been deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.

But we all know what it really is-----just another method to keep a sex offender behind bars and locked up for years and years. Many who go into civil commitment never leave the hospital---well, I mean prison.

In 1997, the United States Supreme Court in Kansas vs Hendricks ruled that INDEFINITE civil commitment was Constitutional. I remember I was in prison at the time and when I first heard that the case would be heard in front of the U S Supreme Court, I told the other inmates, "That will never pass. When an inmate finishes his sentence, they have to release him."

http://tinyurl.com/hdp3fdv

I suppose at that time there was still a small smidgen of Pollyana in me and I still wanted to believe in the system. When the Supreme Court made their ruling, I was totally shocked.

As in many of the laws enacted regarding sex offenders, they have wordsmithed the law and changed a few phrases within the statute to make the law seem fair and Constitutional, but it is just a disgrace that a man can serve his sentence and still be kept confined.

rewdiazepam

I feel really sorry for the guy. I've met him. He's a very nice guy. He calls me his sister. If it wasn't for him, my husband would've gone crazy in county jail. He kept him from harming himself. Got my husband to read his bible and start drawing. You know my hubby is pretty good at it.

In Missouri we had a class action suit filed by residents of the civil commitment program. If there be a blessing in disguise, it is that the resident who was the lead plaintiff is pretty knowledgeable about the law and a strong advocate for prisoner rights, and now, the rights of those civilly committed.

Anyway, while the SCOTUS has ruled that civil commitment is constitutional it based its ruling on the state claim that civil commitment is used as a "temporary" measure to treat sex offenders and then return them to society.

The problem is, as the class action suit here pointed out, while states use that claim to civilly commit a person, once the person is civilly committed they are then deprived treatment and that is where issues come into play because then their confinement IS unconstitutional. Thus, the state has a choice in that of either releasing them or giving them the treatment they are entitled to have so they can return to society.

Of course, we know how state officials are -- they do as they damn well please

I thought the Michigan supreme court ruled it unconstitutional.

Not that it matters, but the European High Court has held Civil Commitment - unless ordered at time of sentencing - contrary to their Constitution. This is the reason European countries have begun refusing to extradite wanted sexual offenders back to the US for prosecution.