|
|
| Supreme Court Rules Sex Offenders Can Lose Privileges |
| By Reuters |
| Published: 06/12/2002 |
|
A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that sex offenders can be denied prison privileges for refusing to participate in a treatment program that requires them to accept responsibility for their crimes. The justices, by a 5-4 vote, overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling which said an inmate facing the loss of privileges was being punished for remaining silent, in violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination. In upholding the Sexual Abuse Treatment Program in Kansas, the court said a state can condition an inmate's privileges on participation in the program. Under the program, inmates must accept responsibility for crimes for which they have been sentenced and complete a sexual history form detailing all prior sexual activities. The information can be used against them in future criminal proceedings. Failure to participate in the Kansas program can result in curtailment or loss of visitation rights, work and recreation opportunities, access to a personal television and other privileges. Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court majority that the program served a vital and legitimate prison purpose to rehabilitate sex offenders. He said offering inmates 'minimal' incentives to participate does not amount to compelled self-incrimination. The case involved convicted sex offender Robert Lile, who refused to sign paperwork admitting guilt in the crime he was convicted of and refusing to fill out a form that listed his sexual history, including the names of any other victims. If the court had ruled for Lile, Kennedy said there would be serious doubt about the constitutionality of the federal sex offender treatment program, which is similar to the one in Kansas. Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concurred in the judgment, but disagreed with some of the legal reasoning and the standards used by Kennedy and the three other justices. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, dissented. 'Until today, the court has never characterized a threatened harm as 'a minimal incentive',' Stevens said. 'Nor have we ever held that a person who has made a valid assertion of the privilege may nevertheless be ordered to incriminate himself and sanctioned for disobeying such an order,' he said. 'This is truly a watershed case,' Stevens said. |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think