Ruling on Holding Rapists Indefinitely Stirs Debate

(May 18) -- The Supreme Court ruling that sex offenders can be held indefinitely even after they have served federal sentences will keep dangerous people locked up, victims' advocates say, but civil libertarians say it infringes on fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Congress had the constitutional authority to pass a law allowing a "sexually dangerous" person to be held indefinitely after being convicted of a federal sex crime or being found mentally incompetent to stand trial.

"We're talking about the worst of the worst," said Gene Schmidt of Leawood, Kan., whose daughter would be 37 this year if she hadn't been raped and killed by a convicted sex offender 17 years ago. He helped push for a Kansas law that the Supreme Court upheld in 1997 allowing states to keep sex offenders under so-called "civil commitment" laws. The ruling Monday means federal offenders will be subject to the same type law.

The court also ruled Monday that teenagers may not be locked up for life without chance of parole if they haven't killed anyone.

Keeping people likely to commit more crimes locked up makes sense, he said. "We're saving a lot of lives. ... Why would we want to re-release these people onto the public?"

But Jack King, an attorney and director of communications at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, disagreed. "There's no way to predict future dangerousness. That's just crazy," King said. "It's not fair to keep them locked up. They've done all the time Congress said they should do."

But Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 as part of wave of state and federal laws that cracked down on sexual offenders in the past decade. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented in the 7-2 decision, saying that keeping dangerous sex offenders off the streets should be left up to the states, not the federal government.

"What's next? Keeping people in jail after finishing sentences for assault or drug dealing because the person might commit another crime?" asked Tracy Velazquez, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute, which advocates reducing reliance on incarceration.

"This is window dressing for holding people forever," said Velazquez. "Policymakers are using it as a way to lock people away forever, not for people to get treatment and get better."

Velazquez said more than 20 states already have "civil commitment" laws that keep some sex offenders in jail after their sentences are done. Not enough is done, she said, to get the sex offenders treatment while they are in prison. And keeping them indefinitely costs taxpayers plenty. The price is $42,000 a year per person in Florida, and $166,000 yearly per person in California, she said.

Few sex offenders held under state civil commitment laws are ever released. Velazquez said only about 12 percent are released, and half of those are released on technicalities.

Most sex offenses are prosecuted under state law. But federal laws apply to child pornography crimes and offenses at military bases, Indian reservations and national parks.

Under the ruling, offenders would have a hearing on whether they should be detained after serving their sentences. But federal officials won't have to meet as high of a standard as they do in criminal court to continue to hold the person. Instead, the federal government would have to show they still are dangerous by "clear and convincing" evidence.

"It's like they are being re-sentenced without a jury," Velazquez said.

But Schmidt said the law might have helped his daughter. So might have the sexual offender registries that are common requirements now, but weren't when she was killed. Stephanie Schmidt accepted a ride from a co-worker that night. But she wouldn't have gotten in the car with him if she had known he was a convicted rapist, her father said.

The ruling was good news for Schmidt on a day that began with him and his wife, Peggy, talking about how much they miss their daughter. "It still seems impossible. It should never have happened to her."