April 22, 2013
Notable civil rights action victory for Iowa sex offenders subject to civil confinement
Because sex offenders rarely get court victories concerning impositions on their civil rights, I found noteworthy today's panel ruling in the Eighth Circuit in Arnzen v. Palmer, No. 12-3634 (8th Cir. April 2013) (available here). Here is how the opinion starts:
Patients at the Iowa Civil Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders (CCUSO) filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the placement of video cameras in CCUSO restrooms, and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop their use. The district court denied the motion as to cameras in the "dormitory style restrooms" (restrooms with multiple toilets, showers and sinks) but granted a preliminary injunction ordering that cameras in the "traditional style bathrooms" (bathrooms with a single toilet, sink, and shower) be pointed at the ceiling or covered with a lens cap. The administrators of CCUSO appeal and we affirm.
April 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Notable civil rights action victory for Iowa sex offenders subject to civil confinement:
I am a reader/writer.
What prevents civally committed inmates in Iowa and in other states from rising up the way Lucasville and Attica inmates once did? Are they more secure than maximum security prisons? Or, are the detainees who are sent there more passive than your militant-type radical inmates?
It would seeme to me to be a no-brainer that keeping a person beyond his or her sentence would eliminate any incentive for that detainee to behave toward the staff and jailors.
Posted by: william r. delzellell | Apr 23, 2013 10:36:42 AM
I would think a lot of it is that as bad as these facilities might be there are worse places to end up and these civilly committed patients have likely seen some of them and don't want to go back.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Apr 23, 2013 11:47:38 AM
nah soronel that's not it. More of a case that those in the illegal comitment facilities are having been dumb or unlucky enough to be sent there. Are dumb enough to accept the illegal shit the govt keeps pulling instead of staging a nation wide revolt.
Trust me I would!
Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 23, 2013 1:56:28 PM
Soronel's suggestion MIGHT be correct. It is strange that virtually all the documentaries on civil commitment ever since 1990 (the year that this practice started--in that particular case, the state of Washington)have never broached the subject of whether inmates at civil commitment would have any more incentive to be "model" prisoners the way regular convicts would as a condition of early release in regular penetentiaries. Also, documentaries on civil commitment have never discussed the issue of staff/guard safety, or other discipline/security issues at these facilities. Regular prisons, in contrast, have received AMPLE attention from the news media about such concerns.
Posted by: william r. delzellell | Apr 23, 2013 2:55:12 PM
If you are trying save some one from assault, I am not sure this is a victory...
Posted by: zed power | May 4, 2013 4:40:48 PM