Sex-crime terms have a limit

A law making it possible to hold 'sexually dangerous' criminals past release dates is ruled unconstitutional

RALEIGH -- The federal government cannot keep sexual predators locked up beyond their scheduled release dates, according to a ruling by a federal judge.

The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge W. Earl Britt declared unconstitutional part of a law approved in July 2006 with much fanfare.

The 59-page ruling, issued last week at the Raleigh federal courthouse, stopped the government's attempt to keep five "sexually dangerous" men away from the public through a process known as civil commitment, which allows a person to be held past his incarceration with the intention of rehabilitation.

"The court concludes that civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons ... is not a necessary and proper extension of Congress' power," Britt wrote.

Supporters say civil commitment is a way to ensure that extremely dangerous sexual predators won't be able to attack again. Critics, however, question the government's right to keep a person imprisoned indefinitely on the suspicion that he might commit a crime.

Most violent sex offenses are handled at the state level and 20 states run programs in which sexual predators are held indefinitely or until they're no longer considered dangerous. The federal government's attempt at civil commitment has been going on only a year. No federal inmates have actually been committed, but at least 57 face the possibility.

Britt's ruling affected only the five men, who are housed at the federal corrections complex in Butner, 35 miles north of Raleigh and the planned home of the civil commitment program. It might have larger implications for other federal inmates, said S. Elizabeth Gibson, a law professor at UNC-Chapel Hill.

"It would be a precedent that other courts might look to," she said.

The judge's order addresses provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which was named in honor of the murdered son of "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh. At the time the law passed, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch called it "the most comprehensive child crimes and protection bill in our nation's history."

"When a child's life or innocence is taken it is a terrible loss -- it's an act of unforgivable cruelty," President Bush said when signing the bill.

In his lengthy order, Britt focused on the civil commitment program outlined in the law. The act allows the Federal Bureau of Prisons to declare a person "sexually dangerous" and then allows the government to ask a federal judge to order the person committed.

Britt ruled that Congress did not have the constitutional powers to order inmates held for violent crimes that, if committed, would fall under the jurisdiction of state courts.

The public defender's office, which represented all five men against the government's attempts to hold them beyond their prison terms, declined to comment on Britt's ruling.

The prisoners -- Graydon Comstock, Shane Catron, Thomas Matherly, Marvin Vigil and Markis Revland -- were still being held Wednesday at the federal prison complex in Butner while the U.S. Attorney's Office decides whether to appeal Britt's ruling.

Since 2006, the federal Bureau of Prisons has certified 57 people as sexually dangerous, said Traci Billingsley, a spokeswoman. All are in the midst of legal proceedings and none has had a judge rule against him, she said. The federal prison system plans to house the sex offenders at its facility in Butner if a judge does commit them, she said.

Britt's ruling is not expected to have any effect on the states that house an estimated 2,700 people who have been civilly committed after their prison sentences on sex crimes ended. North Carolina is not among those states.

Bruce Winick, a University of Miami law professor who has written extensively on the subject, is critical of civil commitment proceedings. Instead of telling sexual offenders that they've done something wrong, it gives the impression that the person is suffering from a mental deficiency or illness, Winick said. That reinforces the offenders' beliefs that he had no choice but to commit the crime.

"It sort of assumes that these people are mentally ill," he said. "They are, in my view, just bad people."

(News researcher Lamara Williams-Hackett contributed to this report.)