Opinion ID: 1993367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Civil Nature of the Act.

Text: The Maryland Court of Appeals in Eggleston v. State, supra , decided the Act was regulatory in character and therefore not penal but civil in nature. It becomes vital that there be a proper determination as to the correctness of this conclusion because only if the statute is regulatory can the precise criminal procedures required to uphold the constitutionality of a penal statute be dispensed with. If, on the other hand, the act is regulatory and therefore civil in nature, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution's requirement is met if there is provided reasonable safeguards under the circumstances which include consideration of the fact that persons may be deprived of their liberty for the good of society and themselves. It seems clear that if there exists affirmative evidence that the act results from a legislative intent to regulate rather than punish, the law is deemed to be civil in nature. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 9 L.ed.2d 644, 83 S.Ct. 554 (1963). We conclude from the evidence before us that the legislative history of the Defective Delinquent Act [4] clearly demonstrates that its sole objective and purpose was not penal but an effort to segregate a known group of mentally disordered people who are found guilty of criminal acts, by confining them in an institution housing only members of their group in a sole effort to protect society and provide treatment to effect, if possible, a cure of the illness. From the history it is clear that the legislative imposition of sanctions by restraining the individual results from studies that indicate that such restraint is necessary both for the protection of society and to provide medical treatment to further curative measures. In short, it is the State's effort to determine the cause of a criminal's acts and if associated with mental disorder to accomplish improvement under psychiatric supervision so that he may hopefully be released, no longer a danger to himself or society. This act now before the Court is so similar in design and has a legislative purpose so similar to the act that was before the Supreme Court in Minnesota, ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, supra , that we believe the decision of that court upholding the constitutionality of the Minnesota Sexual Psychopath Law is direct authority for our conclusion that this act is civil in nature. We further point out that the purpose of this act is so closely akin to the so-called Sexual Psychopath laws enforced in some twenty (20) states and the District of Columbia, that the decisions of the Courts in those jurisdictions that each of their laws is civil in nature is ample authority to conclude that the Maryland Act is regulatory. State v. Madary, 178 Neb. 383, 133 N.W.2d 583 (1965); People v. Levy, 151 Cal. App.2d 460, 311 P.2d 897 (1957); Miller v. Overholser, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 110, 206 F.2d 415 (1953); In re Miller, 98 N.H. 107, 95 A.2d 116 (1953). See also cases cited in annotation under Sexual Psychopaths, 24 A.L.R.2d 350. Assuming, however, that contrary to our finding here, there exists no conclusive evidence of legislative intent as to whether or not the act is penal or civil in nature, the answer to this question must be determined from the face of the Act after considering the following: ... whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment; whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter; whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment, that is, retribution and deterrence; whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime; whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it; and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra . After considering these factors, we conclude that the statute on its face supports the conclusion that the act is civil in nature. We find this for the following reasons: Even though the sanction does involve an affirmative restraint it is provided only because it is deemed best for the protection of society and best for the protection and treatment of the individual that he be placed in a maximum security institution maintained solely for defective delinquents and not for other members of the criminal element. Historically, this type of sanction or restraint to accomplish the purposes of the Act has not been regarded as punishment but regulatory and is more akin to those laws consistently held to be civil in nature applicable to the sexual psychopaths. Also this is true of laws involving loss of liberty by restraint of many mentally ill persons in mental hospitals in all of the states. The Maryland Act does not come into play on a finding of scienter, because the person involved must before referral for diagnosis, already have been convicted of at least one criminal act and can be determined to be a defective delinquent only after there has been an intensive mental examination. The law on its face clearly shows that it was not enacted to promote the aims of punishment, retribution and deterrence, but its only purpose is for the protection of society, and the treatment of the individual to effectuate a cure if at all possible. The Act clearly demonstrates that defective delinquency is not a crime but is a mental condition that can only be diagnosed and determined to exist after a finding of guilt. There exist alternate purposes which are valid functions of the State as a part of its police power. They are the protection of society, coupled with a humanitarian attempt to treat, cure and rehabilitate those suffering from abnormal mental functioning. The sanctions or incarceration provided by the Act are not excessive in relation to these alternative purposes since most reputable psychiatrists agree that treatment cannot be related to a fixed period of confinement, as the length of time necessary for treatment and cure, if it can be obtained, is uncertain. In addition, experience has demonstrated that the indeterminate confinement is itself therapeutic, as it has a tendency to generate and motivate the individual to participate in the institutional program in order to help himself. Based on the testimony, we fear that without the indeterminate provision in the Act, violence would be done to its basic concepts and purposes, and much of the good sought by this legislation would go for naught. The very qualities making up the nature of an individual at Patuxent, with his warped attitudes and distorted outlook, would dictate to him that he antisocially wait out his allotted time, resisting introspection and any kind of reappraisal of his makeup, and refusing to cooperate in receiving available therapy to any degree that would give promise of his ultimate rehabilitation. We find that on the basis of present psychiatric and psychological knowledge, it can be accurately predicted that certain individuals will commit crimes. In cases where it is believed that a person at Patuxent still maintains his propensity for crime, it would be a tragic destruction of the purposes of this legislation, a disservice to society and not the least of the errors, a serious injustice to the individual to release him, uncured. We therefore conclude that the Maryland Defective Delinquent Act is civil in nature under either test; that is, such a conclusion results from the legislative history and also the Act on its face supports this finding after taking into account the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Kennedy. The real question, however, Judge Bell asks in Sas, is ... whether the proposed objectives of the Act are sufficiently implemented in its actual administration to support its categorization as a civil procedure and justify the elimination of conventional criminal procedural safeguards .... We are persuaded that there is much force in the respondent's argument that the answer to this question is a legislative rather than a judicial function. The Kennedy case seems to support the conclusion that the court's sole concern in this area is to determine whether or not the act is reasonably calculated to achieve its legislative purpose, leaving for the legislative and executive branches of the government a determination of whether in fact it is accomplishing its legislative purpose. It would seem that the court's further concern after concluding that the Act was reasonably calculated to achieve its legislative purpose, only exists if the other branches of the government fail to act after a clear showing that it is ineffectual in accomplishing its purpose. We are aware of no responsible opinion of any professional group, and certainly there is no opinion of any of the witnesses testifying in this case, that the Act is clearly ineffectual in accomplishing its legislative purpose. On the contrary we conclude from the testimony by following the requirements of the Act, together with a utilization of medically accepted treatment techniques now being carried out at Patuxent, provides a procedure reasonably calculated to achieve the stated legislative purposes. The testimony, we believe, justifies our determining that this legislation has proven to be a benefit to society as well as the individual and is becoming more so as results of knowledge gained from experiences at Patuxent and developments in psychiatry are evaluated and utilized. Ten years is too short a time for anyone to know the extent of the ultimate accomplishments which may result from this vastly complex undertaking. Pioneering of necessity involves trial and error, but only in this way does civilization advance. What has been done up to now has not been ineffective and augurs well for the future. All agree that the humane objectives, the protection of society and concern for the welfare of mentally ill persons are laudable. A benefit not to be overlooked is that the inmate while continuing to manifest pronounced symptoms of potentially dangerous antisocial behavior is protected, while confined, from the consequences to him, which would likely result from his being at large. We conclude that the Court has no power to interfere until its ineffectiveness is clearly demonstrated and the other branches of the government fail to act. The petitioner argues that only a small number of individuals have been paroled or released during the ten (10) years of Patuxent's operation. Accepting this statement as true, we believe that such a result is understandable when it is considered that Patuxent was opened in 1955, that there necessarily ensued a period of nearly a year before there could be an adjudication after an examination that any individual was, in fact, a defective delinquent. The medical professional witnesses agreed that such a disorder is difficult of treatment and there exists no time table for cure. The illness does not await the discovery of a cure. The Act and its operation is admittedly an experimental one but we find nothing in the evidence to justify any conclusion that as administered it is unworkable or that it is not achieving its stated objectives. This we find is the conclusion of responsible psychiatrists, physicians, criminologists, and jurists who have studied in depth Patuxent Institution as it is being operated under the Defective Delinquent Act. We further conclude from the evidence that the legislative and executive branches of the government are keeping abreast of and familiar with the operation of Patuxent Institution and the internal administration at Patuxent, in turn, is continually re-evaluating its treatment and release program in light of new developments in the psychiatric-medical field. See Research Report No. 29, Research Division of the Legislative Council of Maryland, December, 1959 (Ex. No. 15); Report of Commission to Study and Re-Evaluate Patuxent Institution, Legislative Council of the General Assembly of Maryland, January 25, 1961, (Ex. No. 17); Interim Report of Commission to Study Changes and Basis of Selection for Patuxent Institution, December 15, 1964 (Ex. No. 21); Report of the Committee of the American Psychiatric Association on the Patuxent Institution, December 20, 1960 (Ex. No. 16). We likewise conclude from all the evidence that the Act is not only intended to achieve its legislative purpose but the administrative procedures pursuant thereto are in accordance with the latest medically accepted practices and as administered are reasonably calculated to accomplish the Act's desired result  that is the protection of society, accompanied by an attempt to provide medical help for those unfortunate individuals who because of mental illness demonstrate a propensity to commit criminal acts. This is all the Federal Constitution requires. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra .