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

Heading: Is the statutory definition of a Defective Delinquent as applied by the Maryland Courts sufficiently definitive to permit its practical application within Federal Constitutional limitations.

Text: II. Are the objectives of the Act sufficiently implemented in its actual administration to support its categorization as a civil procedure, and to justify the elimination of conventional criminal procedural safeguards. III. Are the procedures embodied in the statute and in Daniels' trial applied in such a manner as to offend the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment and the confrontation requirements of the Sixth Amendment. IV. Does the Act, as interpreted and applied, permitting a defective delinquent to be found to be an actual danger to society, offend the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when, as construed, it includes individuals whose conduct indicates a danger to property rights rather than violence to persons. V. Does Patuxent in fact furnish treatment for treatable defective delinquents, as distinguished from other lawbreakers, which would support the Act under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A detailed finding of relevant facts is for convenience designated as Appendix A, though nonetheless a part of this opinion, and will be referred to when appropriate in our conclusions.