The Iowa Supreme Court has dismissed the state’s efforts to confine two men convicted for sex abuse crimes indefinitely under the state’s law allowing civil commitment of sexually violent predators. Full Article
IA: 2 Convicted of Sex Crimes Can’t Be Held Indefinitely
- ·April 14, 2018
- ·6 Comments
Related Posts...
IL: Court tosses lawsuit in sex-video suicide case
January 23, 2019
MI: ACLU suit seeks changes to Michigan sex offender registry
January 20, 2019
NH: Relief for Some Persons on the NH Sex Offender Registry
January 17, 2019
A split 4-3 decision in both of the cases mentioned in the article.
“Preventive detention is very limited in American law because it is seen as antithetical to fundamental liberty interests and the presumption of innocence,”
… sexually violent predator statutes “threaten to deprive individuals of what from time immemorial has been the weightiest of interests — the interest in individual liberty.”
… the vague and flexible standards of the statutes allows, if not encourages, “a better-safe-than-sorry approach” of locking up sex crime violators indefinitely.
Yep, courts are speaking up. Although this case doesn’t mean much overall it is a perk at what is coming. The Millard case, and mine as well are bringing the real issies for the first time If I can manage not to let some tech errors or manipulations screw me up. I hope they take note of judicial notice, I think it is crucial and I have a frigging list of gov docs a mile long I believe they have to take judicial notice and everything else is hearsay BS. If the court takes juducial notice of both the recidivism and efficacy governmental reports it will end any controversy once and for all. No one has hammered them on it yet until Millard and I. I am going to continue to pound it in every brief and any chance I get.
Sounds like a loop hole that will bring more laws to protect the children.
They’re going to do whatever the hell the want to us regardless. It’s an easy “win” for them come reelection time.
Wow. One of these guys was convicted of assault with intent to commit a sex crime and sentenced to two years in prison. While he was out of prison living in a “Residential Facility” – a halfway house? – to complete a special 10 year term – the State tried to have him committed indefinitely. For an offense worth a 2 year prison sentence! If that does not strike fear into the heart of any good citizen, I do not know what will.
I fear that most people who read that article will fail to question whether the state’s intent was reasonable, or grasp the implications of it. They will only see that a “dangerous sex offender” who “should be locked up forever” is now on the loose because of a “liberal” judge.