A recent article (sub. possibly req.) in The Economist comes to the defense of an unlikely group: sex offenders.  The article explains how punishments for sex offenses in the United States have become increasingly draconian in recent years; politicians view newer, tougher laws as an easy way to look “tough on crime,” while no politico in their right mind would vote against such a law.  As one Georgia politician observed:

“Sex offenders are the most reviled people in society. . . . They’re one step above terrorists; there’s no political downside to cracking down on these folks.”

Unfortunately, as the Economist explains, mounting evidence suggests that such laws aren’t even effective. 

Despite those concerns, Congress stepped up federal sex offender laws in the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.  Among other things, the Act authorizes civil committment of any individual currently incarcerated in the federal system, even after the expiration of their prison term.  The Act only requires that such individuals be found “sexually dangerous” in a commitment hearing, even if the inmate has not previously been convicted of any sex-related crime.  Once it is established by “clear and convincing evidence” that an individual is “sexually dangerous,” they may be confined indefinitely. See 18 U.S.C. 4247.

The Supreme Court is about to consider the constitutionality of these civil committment procedures in United States v. Comstock.  The interesting thing about the case is the way in which it has reframed the debate: the debate over such laws is not “pro-sex-offender” vs. “anti-sex-offender” (a ludicrous debate).  Instead, the libertarians have gotten involved, arguing that the Act overstepped congressional powers [PDF]. 

I note this case principally to observe that it is one of the few situations where I’m happy to see a little judicial activism.  If ever there was a situation where an immensely unpopular minority was suffering from the “violence of the majority,” this is it.  These individuals certainly deserve punishment of the highest degree, but my hope is that the judiciary will approach this problem a bit more objectively than legislators have.

-Michael