Adam Walsh Act - Civil Commitment Cases
This post is Part III in a series that is explained here.
As with bail, there has been only one opinion thus far related to civil commitment. As I have noted on this blog before, there are several cases in the pipeline, but so far only one opinion has been issued. And the only concerns a very discrete issue as noted below:
US v. Zehntner, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4700 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2007) – Defendant challenged the use by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) of a treatment report that was made pursuant to a court order mental health program. The Defendant argued that the report could be used by the BOP to support a finding that the defendant was a “sexually dangerous person” under the Act and be subject to civil commitment at a later date. The Court held that the legitimate reasons for BOP to have access to the report outweighed any concern that it would be used to support civil commitment of the defendant.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE PEOPLE THAT WAS SIGNED THAT THEY WOULD DO 10 YEARS SHOULD HAVE TO DO ANOTHER 15 AFTER THAT. SPECIALLY IF THEY ONLY HAVE 1 1/2 YEARS OR LESS TO GO!
Posted by: LISHAI | May 20, 2008 at 06:56 PM
Said like a person with only 1 1/2 years or less to go!
Posted by: Just-Me | June 20, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Said like a person with only 1 1/2 years or less to go!
Posted by: Just-Me | June 20, 2008 at 01:39 PM
What amazes me is people don't seem to realize that acts like this are a back door for the government to intrude in other areas of our lives. No one wants sexual predators out looking for new victims, but this law seems to apply equally to someone who got arrested for having sex with a prostitute. How are they dangerous to children? This act also seems to require detailed information for any reproduction of pornography. So let's say you have a nude photo of your wife and the police find it. If you don't have records proving her age at the time the photo was taken, you go to jail. It also allows too much jurisdiction for police to "track" sex offenders and search them anywhere, any time. Are the courts going to fund safe zones for sex offenders to live and work? If not, how long do you suppose they will be able to work and pay for a residence and stay out of trouble? And who's next? Anyone convicted of any crime? Then speeding tickets? Then people with memberships in groups on the nation's terrorist watch list like Amnesty International? This is a bad law.
Posted by: adam smith | June 29, 2008 at 10:15 PM