NCJ Number
101893
Journal
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 12 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1986) Pages: 99-121
Date Published
1986
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This note examines whether a congressional action creating a nationwide automatic commitment law for Federal defendants acquitted by reason of insanity would violate the 10th amendment.
Abstract
Focus is on the historical division of powers between States and the Federal Government, 10th amendment judicial decisions, and prior commitment legislation (including the Federal Mental Health Defectives Act of 1949). In recent decisions involving 10th amendment challenges, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the goal of federalism is to achieve a balance between State and Federal government that best provides for the common good. Courts have cited three sources supporting congressional authority to act in the area of insanity: (1) the power to prosecute Federal crimes, (2) the power to control those in the custody of the Federal Government, and (3) the Government's implied power of self-protection. The distinction between a Federal defendant awaiting trial or serving a sentence and one already acquitted prohibits the use of two of these sources as a rationale for depriving States of their traditional functions in the area of insanity. However, a properly worded Federal statute based on the Government's implied power of self-protection and interest in the common good probably would not be viewed as a challenge to the power of the States. 166 notes.