Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...
Criminal law 122 spring 2012 professor whitaker mini project #2 group 5 operation order
1. Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002)
and Selig v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (2001)
GROUP 5: Operation order
2. The defendant cannot control his dangerous
behavior–even if (as provided by Kansas law)
problems of emotional, and not
volitional, capacity prove the source of
behavior warranting commitment. (the trial
court had made no such finding)
3. Commitment was challenged in state
court, arguing that the conditions of his
commitment were punitive and that he
was, in effect, serving a second criminal
sentence.
the Court dismissed the challenge to the law
as the act in question was entirely 'civil'
4. Example One
The required standard of proof had to be sufficient to
make the distinction between a dangerous sexual
offender whose serious mental illness or
abnormality, made him eligible for civil commitment
from the "dangerous but typical recidivist" offender
convicted in an ordinary criminal case.
Example Two
Young's contention that the law was 'punitive' was
functionally a full "facial challenge” A facial
challenge takes issue with the entire law, and such
challenges had already been dismissed by the
Supreme Court.
5. Civilcommitment laws allow a judge or jury
to determine whether a sex offender who
appears to meet the definition of a sexually
violent predator should be released to the
community following their confinement
period or whether they should be placed in a
secure DSHS-operated facility for
control, care, and treatment.
6. Following two violent sexual assault cases in
the 1980s, a special task force was created
to examine various aspects of Washington
law that permitted the release of dangerous
sex offenders. The Community Protection Act
of 1990 was subsequently passed.
THE END…