Then, of course, most Americans aren't on the U.S. Supreme Court. And it's a good thing: The nine Justices over at SCOTUS have just agreed to spend some time mulling over a controversial case involving a sex offender, jail time and the legal complexities of civil liberties.
Back in 1997, the Court decided that states have the right to remand sexual predators to high-security mental institutions after they've completed a jail term — if the state can prove the offender poses a risk to the outside world. Now, lawyers for Michael T. Crane, who was convicted in Kansas of exposing himself to a tanning-salon attendant and sexually assaulting a video store clerk back in 1993, say their client does not fit that profile. State prosecutors, on the other hand, say Crane does pose a threat, and want to lock him up after he completes his sentence.
When it heard the case last July, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that Crane did not fit the standard required for reinstitutionalizing criminals, and dismissed the state's case. In response to the appeal Kansas filed Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case, and revisit the question of sex offenders' place in the world. At the heart of the matter is the notion that a prison term is a finite punishment for a crime committed, and that once convicted criminals have "done their time" they should be free to go on living their lives.
But there have been several, often gruesome cases in recent years in which sex offenders, grudgingly released from prison at the end of their terms, returned to their old ways and claimed new victims. Sex offenders have a very high rate of recidivism, and that knowledge spurs the states' interest in continued custody.
Is fear a good enough reason to keep someone off the streets? It's not clear, according to DePaul law professor Jeffrey M. Shaman, who says the state is walking a fine line when it calls for sending prisoners to institutions after they've completed their sentence. "It's always been understood that it takes a great deal of proof to keep a person locked up — the state must show the person is suffering from mental disorder and poses an imminent threat. After all, we're talking about taking away someone's liberty, incarcerating them against their will. And this can only be done in very special circumstances."
The intricacies of the debate, says Shaman, and the potentially widespread implications of any decision mean this is definitely a job for the Supremes. "I think the Court's prior decision needs a good deal of clarification," he says. And who better to clarify it than the Justices themselves?