There have been several interesting criminal law new stories this week. I want to focus mainly on one with a local connection, but I'll note briefly this New York Times article that describes some research suggesting that probation and parole violations should be more frequent, more immediate, and less harsh; this Wired magazine article that discusses whether and when a court may include a ban on computer use or internet access as part of a defendant's sentence; and this new decision by (a conservative panel of) the Ninth Circuit, holding that police officers may be subject to civil liability if they refuse "to investigate a crime or make an arrest due to the race of the victim." I want to give a little extra attention, though, to United States v. Comstock, argued this Tuesday before the United States Supreme Court. The question presented in Comstock is: Whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) "sexually dangerous" persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) "sexually dangerous" persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial. I'm oversimplifying, but basically, the federal government has a program under which sex offenders who are about to finish their federal prison sentences are evaluated to see if they are mentally ill and [...]
Faculty Coordinators
