The MSOP...

The MSOP...
FEAR BASED STRESS BOX Click on pic of MSOP!

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Fed CC/AWA Under Fire

The federal civil commitment program for sex offenders who have completed their sentences is under intense fire and federal judges are largely refusing to go along with the government's Witch Hunt:

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/includes/_public/_issues/pln_2012/08pln12.pdf

1 comment:

  1. PEOPLE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SUCH INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT AS WILL GIVE EACH OF THEM A REALISTIC OPPORTUNITY TO BE CURED OR TO IMPROVE THEIR MENTAL CONDITION
    under the 8th and 14th Ament. ,state may not show " deliberate indifference" to inmates mental health needs. A person convicted of crimes deserve to be punished but this dose not give the state license to make prisoners objects of unguided behavior control experiments. Canterino v. Wilson 546 F Supp 174 . "the loss of liberty is more then a loss of freedom from confinement. while a conviction and sentence extinguish an individuals right to freedom from confinement...they do not authorize the state to classify him as mentally ill and subject him to involuntary psychiatric treatment without according him additional due process protection". Vitek v. Jones 100 SCt 1254. The principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions. Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept of Health 110 Sct. when a person is intentionally subjected to harsh conditions in order to deter him from maintaining a course of conduct the fact that it is done in the name of Psychiatric treatment dose not keep it from being intentional punishment and a violation of the 8th Amendment (see Green v. Baron 662 F. Supp 1378) "the loss of liberty is more then a loss of freedom from confinement. while a conviction and sentence extinguish an individuals right to freedom from confinement...they do not authorize the state to classify him as mentally ill and subject him to involuntary psychiatric treatment without according him additional due process protection". Vitek v. Jones 100 SCt 1254. The principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept of Health 110 SCt. 2841.the state forced the plaintiff in to a involuntary psychiatric treatment to change his thinking Patterns the "State dose not have the right to control the moral content of a person's thoughts" " This limitation on government is at the core of our constitutionsl values: "Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds"" Staney v. Geogia 89 S.Ct. @1243
    but also "restricts governmental power by restraining arbitrary and potentily vindictive legislation" Weaver v. Graham 101 S.Ct. @ 960, 963- 964. The prohibitions on "bills of Attainder" in Art. I §§ 9-10 cl. prohibit legislatures from singling out disfavored persons and meting out summary punishment for past conduct Landgrar v. usi film products 114 S.Ct @1497. These laws act as Bills of Attainders in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions
    If that treatment dose not give the Plaintiff more chance for improvement then no treatment, or there is the possibility of the treatment doing mental or emotional harm or is likely to increase the chance of reoffence. Then the Plaintiff has been deprived of his liberty without sufficient cause and without due process. The fact that the treatment involves changeling the thinking patterns of those in the treatment (people that are not mentally ill) "This limitation on government is at the core of our constitutional values: "Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."" Staney v. Geogia 394 US 557, 89 SCt 1243, Flanagan v. State 846 P2d 1053 or his associational ties Griswold V. Connecticut 85 SCt 1678. Healy v. James 92 SCt 2338 Also see ohlinger v. watson 652 F.2d 775

    ReplyDelete