Psychology

The fields of psychology and the law have woven a very intricate piece of fabric when dealing with theories and ethics.  It becomes a battle over what is morally just versus what is legally allowed.  Convicted persons lose all rights and privileges of freedom once they are incarcerated.  The same holds true for a person once they have been committed for psychological purposes. Once a sentence has been served and satisfies the decision of the court, the inmate is released back into society.  Parallel is the direction for an individual who has recovered and been rehabilitated within the confines of a committal facility for the mentally ill.  The United States Supreme Court has now undertaken the task of reviewing a new statute allowing the legal community to overrule an original courts ruling and extend a stay for individuals who are classified as dangerous sex offenders.  The constitutionality of this statue is debatable and yet to be determined.

Federal law holds each state is permitted to create and enforce laws which would serve to protect itself and the members of its communities.  The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 was amended to include section 4248.  The new addition would allow the federal government to civilly commit individuals who are considered to be sexually dangerous offenders.  The new amendment would also permit the civil commitments to occur even after the offender had completed a prior sentence under a courts original ruling.  The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the issue, known as United States v. Comstock, in January 2010.
   
It is not a debatable fact that child molesters and sexual predators should be held to a different scale of punishment.  The behavior of these offenders is reprehensible.  The psychological community has been divided over the issues pertaining to successful rehabilitation of sexual offenders.  Some believe that sex offenders can be rehabilitated, while others see their issues as a personality disorder that cannot be corrected.  Still each state drops more and more funding into programs to attempt to fix the nature of the beast.  A similar case has already been argued before the United States Supreme Court whereby the court ruled that it was legal to criminalize the criminal conduct of a defendant who had crossed state lines to engage in sexual conduct with a minor.
   
In the past, the federal government has left it to each individual state to devise and enforce civil commitment proceedings against its citizens for a variety of reasons.  Sexually dangerous offenders who are mentally ill may in fact need an amendment such as 4248 to protect them from harming any more innocent people.  If the Supreme Court holds that the amendment is constitutional, then the federal government will have to facilitate a new method for determining who will be subject to this new statute and how to enforce it.  Members of the psychiatric profession may find themselves in the middle of a taffy pull as their professional opinions of a patients prognosis may come under fire with regard to the HIPPA laws currently in effect.  If the United States Supreme Court decides that this amendment is unconstitutional, then each state will be left scrambling to enact new policy to combat the recently struck down guidelines.  If 4248 is ruled unconstitutional, then many offenders currently being held over under the statute will be released back into society.  There is no definite time frame to determine when the United States Supreme Court will come forward with a decision, but it will be sometime during 2010.