Involuntary Civil Confinement

Sorry for the posting gap. I have been extremely busy. Anyway, I have been taking a PHD class in Forensic Psychology, and find myself extremely interested in some topics.

While some might strongly disagree with me, I find that I have strong opinions about involuntary treatment and civil confinement of sexual offenders. One point of interest is how the U.S. Supreme Court assessed and decided on the constitutionality of civil commitment for sex offenders. The dominant issue was whether or not the likelihood of a person to commit a sexually predatory act constituted a mental illness, providing grounds for civil confinement of sex offenders. In this case, the Kansas Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court later reversed this decision, arguing that such confinement was constitutional; that the confinement was not punitive although treatment was not a prerequisite.

I can't help but disagree with the Supreme Court on this. It only makes it more difficult to identify a necessary, definitive line between the criminal justice and mental health system in this country. The ruling seems self contradictory as it relates to the involuntary commitment of convicted sex offenders after they have completed their prison sentences. Several questions arise from this. First, how can a person be civilly committed to a mental health institution without defining a course of treatment? Second, how can civil confinement not be considered as a punishment if there is no treatment? The questions are rhetorical, as the decision is clearly just legal camouflage for continued criminal justice. I am not arguing that such offenders shouldn't be confined, but rather that we accept responsibility for that confinement instead of creating legal loopholes and wasting valuable resources in the mental health system.