La Fond J Q
The University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Law, Kansas City, MO 64110-2499, USA.
Behav Sci Law. 2000;18(2-3):153-67. doi: 10.1002/1099-0798(200003/06)18:2/3<153::aid-bsl396>3.0.co;2-i.
This article examines new sexual predator commitment laws enacted recently in the United States to civilly commit dangerous sex offenders after they have served their prison sentences. It then examines Kansas v. Hendricks, a Supreme Court case that upheld these laws as constitutionally permitted. The article next describes the broad parameters that demarcate the government's civil commitment authority identified by the Supreme Court in that case. The author concludes that Hendricks establishes that the state has expansive civil commitment power much greater than our previous understanding. The government may use civil commitment solely to protect the public from dangerous individuals without proving a medically recognized mental disorder, recent evidence of dangerousness, or a treatment purpose or possibility. Moreover, this quarantine system may be justified by proving the same unlawful behavior for which the individual has already been criminally punished.
本文审视了美国近期颁布的新性侵犯者收容法律，这些法律旨在让危险的性犯罪者在服完刑期后接受民事收容。接着，本文审视了堪萨斯州诉亨德里克斯案，这是一起最高法院的案件，该案件维持了这些法律在宪法上的许可性。文章随后描述了界定最高法院在该案件中所确定的政府民事收容权力的广泛范围。作者得出结论，亨德里克斯案确立了州拥有比我们此前理解的更为宽泛的民事收容权力。政府可以仅为保护公众免受危险个体的侵害而使用民事收容措施，而无需证明存在医学上认可的精神障碍、近期的危险性证据，或治疗目的或可能性。此外，这种隔离制度可以通过证明该个体已经因其被刑事处罚的同一非法行为而得到正当化。
