Civil Commitment Cases
Baughman v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. 2022)
In an unpublished opinion, the Supreme Court of Virginia finds reversible error in the trial court, noting that SVPA probable cause hearings require that an expert witness conducting a mental health examination be “designated by the Commissioner” and concluding that the introduction of expert testimony by a mental health professional retained by the Commonwealth, who was not designated by the Commissioner, prejudiced Appellant and had a “substantial influence” on the outcome of the proceeding.
Needham v. Superior Court of Orange County (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)
California Court of Appeals opinion holding as a matter of first impression, that the government was not entitled to call a privately retained expert witness to testify at SVPA trial as to petitioner’s mental state.
Gamble v. Minnesota State-Operated Services (8th Cir. 2022)
Eighth Circuit opinion in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case affirming district court holding and concluding that civil committees in Minnesota’s sex offense civil commitment program participating in a vocational work program are not employees as defined by the FLSA.
Civil Commitment Secondary Materials
Sex Offender Civil Commitment: The Treatment Paradox
Twenty-one states and the federal government have civil commitment schemes that provide for the further confinement of sex offenders after they have completed their prison sentences. These schemes survive constitutional scrutiny on the grounds that they are not a second prison sentence, but rather serve the non-criminal ends of protecting society and helping treat violent sex offenders. The underlying legislation confirms the treatment objective by elaborating statutory guidelines for treatment programs. This Comment argues that treatment–although guaranteed by statute, legislative findings, case law, and the constitution–is an empty promise. Indeed, participation in treatment harms the very offender that it purports to help. This treatment paradox arises because successful treatment and relapse prevention require that an offender discuss his sexual fantasies and past transgressions; yet, unprotected by privilege or confidentiality, these cathartic admissions are utilized in civil commitment proceedings to secure further confinement. Because the prosecution heavily relies on treatment records to show that the offender continues to suffer from a mental abnormality and because the completion of treatment does not favorably impact an offender’s chance of release, offenders often elect to forgo treatment. This treatment disincentive effectively denies offenders the opportunity to heal and to obtain release from commitment through treatment, an opportunity envisioned by statute and by the civil commitment scheme’s constitutional underpinnings.
Sex Offender Civil Commitment to Prison Post-Kinglsey
Arielle W. Tolman, Sex Offender Civil Commitment to Prison Post-Kingsley, 113 Nw. U. L. Rev. 155 (2018) [Ed Note: This article is published as Arielle W. Tolman, Sex Offender Civil Commitment Post-Kingsley, 113 Nw. U. L. Rev. 155 (2018). The abs …
Beyond Strict Scrutiny: Forbidden Purpose and the “Civil Commitment” Power
Sex offender civil commitment (SOCC) is a massive deprivation of liberty as severe as penal incarceration. Because it eschews most of the “great safeguards” constraining the criminal power, SOCC demands careful constitutional scrutiny. Although the Supreme Court has clearly applied heightened scrutiny in judging civil commitment schemes, it has never actually specified where on the scrutiny spectrum its analysis falls. This article argues that standard three-tier scrutiny analysis is not the most coherent way to understand the Supreme Court’s civil commitment jurisprudence. Rather than a harm-balancing judgment typical of three-tier scrutiny, the Court’s civil commitment cases are best understood as forbidden purpose cases, a construct that is familiar in many areas of the Court’s constitutional analysis…
Civil Commitment News
COVID-19: Strategies for Reducing Transmission
In response to the current COVID-19 Pandemic, the Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center has published a set of guidelines for law enforcement, policy experts, and others with respect to law and policy focused on those with past convictions …
Posted: March 28, 2020Reason — After He Found California’s Indefinite Detention of Sex Offenders Wasn’t Working, the State Shut Him Down and Destroyed His Research
By Steven Yoder | From the April 2020 Issue In late 2006, a public defender went before a Napa County judge to argue for his client’s freedom. Rex McCurdy, a 49-year-old man, had been detained for seven years at Atascadero State Hospital under a 1995 C …
Posted: March 6, 2020Reason — Sex Offender Laws Are Broken. These Women Are Working to Fix Them.
By Hallie Lieberman | Feb. 2020 Sandy Rozek is the polar opposite of what comes to mind when you hear the word activist. A 78-year-old great-grandmother and retired high school English teacher who lives in Houston, Rozek is not woke, doesn’t post on Tw …
Posted: January 25, 2020