CCJ4660 DQ7 Jimmy Ryce Civil Commitment for Sexually Violent Predators

Sexually Violent Predators’ Treatment and Care Act,
Name
Course
CCJ4660 DQ7 Act,
Instructor
Date

Background
Juan Carlos Chavez was sentenced to death after being convicted for the kidnapping, rape and murder of 9-year-old Jimmy Ryce. After three months, Chavez confessed to having dismembered Ryce, and in 1998 the Jimmy Rice Act was signed into law in Florida (WPBF 25 News, 2007). The law requires that there is evaluation of sexual predators when they complete their prison sentences, and the most dangerous are committed to treatment.
Three constitutional concerns
The constitutional concerns are “restricting rights and freedoms when there is indefinite civil commitment of predators” like Chavez, “how best to balance between public safety and personal rights”, and whether the issue involves “civil processes rather than criminal ones”. Indefinite civil commitment restricts the rights of the offenders when they are through with their sentences, where this is justified as necessary to ensure the safety of the offenders and the public. I agree that civil confinement is necessary even as the law appears punitive towards the sexual offenders, since the prisoners are evaluated and it is only the most dangerous who are affected
The balance between public safety and personal rights is closely linked with the civil commitment, where there are concerns that there may be a violation of the substantive due process. I agree there was a need to protect the children against sexual exploitation and disagree with the argument that there was infringement of personal rights supposes that there is no substantive due process and fair treatment of the offenders. There are opposing viewpoints on the need for civil commitment and when states adopt such laws, the wording emphasizes rehabilitation and protection (Balsamo & Eth, 2016). There is no guarantee that those in civil commitment will ever be released under the Jimmy Ryce Act as there are those who attend the annual hearings numerous times, but are considered dangerous and more likely to re-offend if let free.
The treatment programs were considered constitutional as the court interpreted that the interventions under civil commitment were neither correctional nor punitive. I agree with relying on civil processes, since the A...