强奸罪的外文文献

强奸罪的外文文献TheDifferenceBetween“Criminal”and“Civil”ConfinementOurconstitutionalsystemprovidesvigorousprotectionforindividualliberty.Thus,underthecriminallawapersoncanlosehislibertyonlyafterthegovernmentprovesbeyondareasonabledoubtthathehascommittedacrime.Butoursystemalsoallowsthegovernment,inlimitedsituations,totakeawayanindividual`sfreedomtopreventhimfromcommittingaharmfulact.Thegovernmentmaycivillycommitsomeonetoamentalhealthfacilitytopreventsuchharmandtotreathimifitcanprovethathesuffersfromamentalconditionthatcauseshimtobedangerous.Theselawsare“civil”becausetheydonotfurthereitherretributionordeterrence.Instead,theyareintendedtoincapacitateandtreatmentallydisturbedanddangerousindividualswhodonotrespondtothethreatofcriminalpunishment.Everystatehasaninvoluntarycivilcommitmentlaw.AContemporaryExample:SexualPredatorLawsSince1990atleast15stateshavealsoenacted“sexualpredatorlaws.”Theyallowthegovernmenttocivillycommitsexoffendersabouttobereleasedfromprisonifitcanprovetheysufferfroma“personalitydisorder”or“mentalabnormality”thatmakesthemlikelytocommitanotherserioussexcrime.Commitmentistoasecurementalhealthfacilityforanindefiniteperiod.Thegovernmentmustprovidetreatmentandperiodicallyreviewtheirconditiontoseeiftheycanbereleased.TheSupremeCourtupheldtheconstitutionalityoftheselawsinKansasv.Hendricks,521U.S.346(1997),providedthegovernmentcanprovethepersonsuffersfromaconditionthatmakesit“difficult,ifnot,impossibleforthepersontocontroltheirdangerousbehavior.”Thementalconditionthatcauseslossofvolitionalcontrolneednotberecognizedbymentalhealthprofessionals.TheCourtsetforthcriteriafordeterminingwhenlawsthatdepriveapersonoftheirlibertytopreventcrimeshouldbeconsidered“civil”ratherthan“punitive”and,thus,notviolateeithertheconstitutionalprohibitionsagainstexpostfactorordoublejeopardy:WheretheStatehasdisavowedanypunitiveintent;limitedconfinementtoasmallsegmentofparticularlydangerousindividuals;providedstrictproceduralsafeguards;directedthatconfinedpersonsbesegregatedfromthegeneralprisonpopulationandaffordedthesamestatusasotherswhohavebeencivillycommitted;recommendedtreatmentifsuchispossible;andpermittedimmediatereleaseuponashowingthattheindividualisnolongerdangerousormentallyimpaired.......Supportersclaimtheselawsarenecessarytopreventdangeroussexoffendersfromcommittinganotherserioussexcrimeaftertheyarereleasedfromprison.Criticsarguetheyallowunconstitutionalpreventivedetentionundertheguiseof‘civilcommitment’andcannotintheorybelimitedintheirreach.