Opinion
No. 30237–2012.
2014-02-7
In the Matter of the Application of The STATE of New York, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL R., Respondent, For Commitment Under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law.
The question at this point is whether substantive due-process is satisfied by a system which subjects sex offenders to potential lifetime confinement simply because they have the same disregard for laws and rules as at least half the prison population and are at great risk to commit sex crimes again. For in the end, if the only thing which distinguishes offenders like Mr. R. from 50–75% of prison inmates is that his crimes of choice include sex offenses, than it is his risk of committing those crimes alone which arguably must warrant his commitment. In Hendricks, the Court held that “[a] finding of dangerousness, standing alone, is ordinarily not a sufficient ground upon which to justify involuntary commitment”. Id. In the instant case an additional factor was present. That factor was ASPD. Whether that additional fact, however, together with a previous sex crime conviction, is enough to warrant civil management, is a question which in this state has yet to be ultimately determined. The manner in which that question is finally resolved may end up determining the status of the Respondent here.