Supreme Court Limits Rights of Sex Offenders

The Supreme Court ruled today that individuals faced with commitment to a psychiatric ward as “sexually dangerous persons” are not entitled to the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

By a 5-4 vote, the court rejected the appeal of an Illinois man who was committed in civil--rather than criminal--proceedings to a state prison maximum-security psychiatric ward.

Justice William H. Rehnquist, in his opinion for the court, said that because such proceedings are not based on criminal charges, the individuals facing commitment are not entitled to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

“The state serves its purpose of treating rather than punishing sexually dangerous persons by committing them to an institution expressly designed to provide psychiatric care and treatment,” Rehnquist said.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said that Illinois treats the sexually dangerous as typical criminals in almost all important respects.

In another case today involving an unusual freedom of speech dispute, the court upheld a Puerto Rico law that prohibits casinos from advertising on the island as a way of keeping residents from wasting their money.

The justices, splitting 5 to 4, said the law did not violate the First Amendment rights of the Condado Plaza Hotel and Casino, which was fined $2,000 and threatened with losing its license after violating the Games of Chance Act.

Writing for the majority, Justice Rehnquist said restraints placed on the free speech of casino operators on the island were justified by the government’s belief “that excessive casino gambling among local residents . . . would produce serious harmful effects on the health, safety and welfare of the Puerto Rico citizens.”