Montana Supreme Court Opinion reversing the trial court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence for failing to complete a treatment program in prison when the original sentence did not specify that was a requirement.
Michigan Court of Appeals reversing a decision denying parole to an person who was serving a sentence for sex offenses, on the grounds that the parole board did not abuse its discretion and that a treatment completion requirement did not violate state law.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that Indiana's treatment program for people incarcerated for a sex offense violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
1st Circuit Court of Appeals case affirming in part and reversing in part complex litigation involving Massachusetts Treatment Center, finding no Due Process violations in Appelants cases.
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.
Utah Supreme Court holding that threat of revocation of supervision for failing to comply with polygraph requirements in treatment program implicated Fifth Amendment interests.