Read the article; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-12/05/007r-120599-idx.html
In his article “Quarantine Them beyond Their Jail Terms,” Frank M. Ochberg suggested that some violent offenders are incurable and should be confined for life to mental hospitals. Ochberg suggests that it’s possible for states to write statutes that affect only these genuinely dangerous killers.
We’ll overlook his mistaken use of the word “jail” when he should have used “prison.” Ochberg’s suggestion wasn’t really so radical–his article was published two years after the Supreme Court decided a very similar issue. That case was Kansas v Hendricks, and portions of the majority and dissenting opinions are part of your reading for this week.
Notice that the issue in this case relates to what we discussed in Week 2. Essentially, the State of Kansas wanted to continue to confine Hendricks even after he completed his prison sentence, because the state believed he would offend again.
After reading the Hendricks case, answer the following questions:
Summarize the key issue and outcome.
How does the Hendricks case relate to Ochberg’s article?
Have any states changed their policies in the wake of the Hendricks decision?
Do you agree with the outcome? Explain why or why not.
Considering the lesson on private prisons, as well as your research, give your opinion on whether they are a good idea. Are they effective? Are there any drawbacks?
References
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1996)
Ochberg, F. M. (1999, December 5). Quarantine them beyond their jail terms.Washington Post, p.B03.