Supreme Court OKs Sexual Predator Laws

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the new wave of state laws aimed at keeping so-called sexual predators behind bars indefinitely, ruling Monday that these potentially dangerous offenders may be held even after they have served their prison terms.

The decision appears to clear away legal doubts about new laws in California and five other states that allow officials to keep custody

of sex criminals whose prison terms are ending. Roughly 400 ex-offenders are being held in the six states under the new laws.

Ruling on a case from Kansas, the court decided on a 5-4 vote that forced confinement in a state treatment facility is not punishment.

“Even though they may be involuntarily confined,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas, the “persons confined under this act are [not] being punished.”

Because the law does not impose punishment, Thomas reasoned, it does not violate the Constitution’s bar on a double-punishment for the same crime, or represent an after-the-fact punishment.

Civil libertarians have complained that this and similar laws aimed at sexual predators wrongly cross a new threshold by confining people based on what they may do, rather than what they have done.

“States can and should enforce long prison terms for repeat sexual offenders,” said Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “But we should not allow politicians to use mental hospitals as a place to lock up individuals.”

He denounced the high court decision, saying it “distorts psychiatry and the laws.”

But with the high court’s approval, other states are expected to pass similar measures. And Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said she will press Congress to pass a similar federal law.

In the past, people who were judged insane could be committed to a state facility for the good of themselves and the community. Until recently, however, these so-called civil commitments have been limited to those who suffer from a mental illness as defined by mental health experts.

Beginning in 1990, however, several states expanded the concept of civil confinement to cover sex criminals, even when these persons were judged not to have a true mental illness. Instead, the new laws refer more loosely to people having a “mental abnormality” or a “personality disorder” that predisposes them to commit sex crimes.

California’s law took effect on Jan. 1, 1996. Until then, prison officials said, they had no recourse but to release a prisoner whose sentence was completed, even when the inmate posed a danger to the community.

Often, repeat sex criminals were serving relatively short sentences. Prosecutors sometimes agreed to plea bargains with sex criminals to spare victims difficult trials. In California, communities increasingly protested when residents learned a sex offender was scheduled for release within their midst.

*

In Orange County, police have used the law to publicize the whereabouts of sex offenders in several communities.

Placentia became the first city to do so this year, telling neighbors about twice-convicted child molester Sidney Landau, 57, who was pressured out of motel rooms in three cities as a result. Landau has since been returned to prison on a parole violation for striking a TV cameraman.

Several weeks later, Mark W. Mahoney, who was convicted of fondling and having oral copulation with several boys, moved from his Orange apartment after police announced his residency and neighbors threatened to protest.

James Lee Crummel, 53, who has been convicted of kidnapping, assaulting and molesting boys, was evicted from the Newport Beach condominium where he lived unnoticed for years before police made his criminal history public under the law.

More recently, sheriff’s officials launched a door-to-door campaign in Rancho Santa Margarita to warn residents of convicted child molester Thomas Lee Gering, 59. Officials told neighbors that Gering “has targeted adolescent boys” but did not reveal his exact address, hoping to avoid widespread protests.

Under the new laws, a psychologist or psychiatrist is hired to examine the prisoner as his release date nears. The evaluation includes his record of offenses. Under the California statute, if the psychologist says an inmate has a “mental disorder” that makes him likely to commit new crimes, prosecutors can seek a court order to have the prisoner confined indefinitely at Atascadero State Hospital near San Luis Obispo.

In the case before the court, Leroy Hendricks, 62, had served a 10-year prison term for molesting two 12-year-old boys in a hardware store. When he was about to be released in 1994, Kansas officials petitioned a state court to have him confined in a new state facility.

They described Hendricks as having pedophilia, which is a mental abnormality. He also had a long history of sex offenses involving children. All such crimes are deemed violent offenses, and officials said Hendricks was likely to commit similar crimes if released.

As a result, Hendricks was confined in the state facility. Last year, however, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, leading to Monday’s decision in Kansas vs. Hendricks, 95-1649.

Joining Thomas’ opinion were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy.

In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the added confinement was “an effort to inflict further punishment” on Hendricks and should be struck down as an after-the-fact punishment.

Washington state passed the first such measure in 1990. Outraged residents had demanded action in response to the case of Earl Shriner.

Despite a 24-year history of sex crimes involving children, Shriner was paroled by state officials in 1989. Six months later, he sexually mutilated a 7-year-old boy.

The boy survived, but angry lawmakers passed the new measure to allow state officials to indefinitely hold repeat rapists and pedophiles.

Other states with similar measures are Wisconsin, Minnesota and Arizona.

In other rulings, the court:

* Said guards at privately run prisons do not have the same legal protection from lawsuits as state employees. Dissenters said the 5-4 ruling in Richardson vs. McKnight, 96-318, will raise the costs of private prisons and undercut the move to privatize such services.

* Ruled that the 1996 federal law limiting appeals in death row cases does not apply to cases which were under appeal in federal court before April 24, 1996, when President Clinton signed the measure (Lindh vs. Murphy, 96-6298).

* Turned down railroad workers who were covered with asbestos dust in the mid-1980s but who do not have symptoms of disease from getting compensation for “emotional distress” or for medical monitoring. The case, Metro-North vs. Buckley, 96-320, concerned the so-called “Snow Men of Grand Central,” who were wrongly sent to work in underground tunnels, where they emerged covered in asbestos fibers.

Times staff writer Bonnie Hayes contributed to this report.