Sex Offender Law

Re: Court strikes down federal sex offender law
Has nothing to do with it. It’s basically the Court telling Congress
that they can’t use the ICC to stomp all over the 10th amendment.
Might have interesting implications for other aspects of the AWA
down the road, though. what dose this mean to already jailed offenders that are to get out in 6 years will this affect there good time and there chance for parole Court strikes down federal sex offender law

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – Congress overstepped its authority when it
enacted a law allowing the federal government to hold sex offenders in custody indefinitely beyond the end of their prison terms, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The law allowing civil commitment of “sexually dangerous” federal
inmates intrudes on police powers that the Constitution reserves
for states, many of which have their own similar statutes, a three-
judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Civil commitment power “is among the most severe wielded by any
government,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote. “The Framers, distrustful of such authority, reposed such broad powers in the states, limiting the national government to specific and enumerated powers.”

In upholding a decision by U.S. District Judge W. Earl Britt of
Raleigh, N.C., the 4th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to
rule on an issue that has divided courts nationwide. A judge in Minnesota reached the same conclusion as Britt, while courts in Hawaii, Oklahoma and Massachusetts upheld the measure.
Thursday’s ruling is binding only in the states included in the 4th
Circuit: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia
and Maryland.

U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller said it was too
early to comment on what steps the government might take next. The department could appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court or seek a rehearing before the full federal appeals court.
Elizabeth Luck, a spokeswoman for the federal public defender’s
office in Raleigh, declined to comment. The public defender represented five inmates who challenged the law after they were kept in custody beyond the end of their sentences at the federal prison hospital in

Butner, N.C.Civil commitment was authorized by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President Bush signed in July 2006. The act, named after the son of America’s Most Wanted television host John Walsh, also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not affected by the ruling.

The appeals court found no merit in the government’s argument that
it had constitutional authority to enact the civil commitment law
under the Commerce Clause, ruling that “sexual dangerousness does not substantially affect interstate commerce.”

The government also relied on a clause authorizing Congress to
enact “all laws which shall be necessary and proper” for executing
federal powers, but the court said that applies only to powers enumerated by the Constitution.

“Our holding, however, does not require that the Government’s
legitimate policy concerns go unaddressed, ” Motz wrote, suggesting federal authorities concerned about a soon-to-be-released inmate’s sexual dangerousness can notify state officials, who can pursue civil
commitment under state law.

“But Congress’s perceived need for the sort of civil commitment
statute at issue here does not create constitutional power where none exists,” Motz wrote. “Congress must instead seek alternative, constitutional means of achieving what may well be commendable objectives.”

Motz was joined in the opinion by Judge G. Steven Agee and
visiting U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris.

On the Net:

* U.S. v. Comstock:
Opinion
Opinion

News

Article

www.FedCURE.org

Norovirus. You know it as stomach flu or gastroenteritis. It can be
contracted directly or via food contaminated by someone who has it,
thus it can be a kind of food poisoning, but has nothing to do with
the age of the chicken. Nasty, and prison is not the place I’d want
to have it, but an otherwise healthy person should not become
seriously ill from it, although some degree of dehydration isn’t
uncommon. There’s a ton of it going around, and I’m betting
scrupulous hand hygiene and safe food handling aren’t real high
priority in the prison kitchen.

— In FedCURE-org@ yahoogroups. com, felicia hewitt <feliciaj96@ …=””> </feliciaj96@>