In Re the Civil Commitment of W.X.C., SVP 458-07
204 N.J. 179
| N.J. | 2010Background
- Defendant W.X.C. was convicted of multiple violent sex crimes in 1993 and sentenced to prison with parole ineligibility; he did not receive sex-offender specific treatment during incarceration.
- The SVPA was enacted in 1998 to civilly commit sexually violent predators for treatment when they pose a future risk.
- In 2007 the State petitioned for SVPA commitment; defendant challenged the SVPA as applied to him for lack of treatment during incarceration.
- The commitment court found he met the SVPA criteria and was likely to reoffend if not treated and confined in the STU.
- Appellate and Supreme Court review focused on whether SVPA is punitive as applied and whether it violates ex post facto and fairness principles.
- The majority upheld SVPA as remedial and regulatory, not punitive, and affirmed the commitment; the dissent would require treatment prior to SVPA proceedings or deem the framework unconstitutional for inmates denied prior treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SVPA is punitive as applied to inmates not treated in prison | W.X.C. contends SVPA is punitive when applied after no treatment | State argues SVPA remains remedial and regulatory | No; SVPA not punitive as applied |
| Whether delaying treatment to those not offered ADTC benefits constitutes unfair treatment | W.X.C. argues differential treatment is unfair | State asserts different statutes target different goals and populations | Not unconstitutional; framework rational given treatment goals and targeting |
| Whether the SVPA framework comports with ex post facto constraints | Ex post facto violation because new punishment after release | SVPA is civil, not punitive; treatment-focused | SVPA is remedial and regulatory; does not violate ex post facto |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) (ex post facto framework aligned with federal law)
- In re J.M.B., 197 N.J. 563 (2009) (SVPA not punitive; treatment goals emphasized)
- State v. Bellamy, 178 N.J. 127 (2003) (SVPA not a direct punishment; regulation)
- In re W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2002) (SVPA framework; treatment and regulatory purposes)
- In re Civil Commitment of W.X.C., 407 N.J. Super. 619 (App.Div. 2009) (App.Div. decision on SVPA applicability to untreated inmates)