Minnesota Law Review

The Mythical Divide Between Collateral and Direct Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Involuntary Commitment of “Sexually Violent Predators”

For many people convicted of crimes, the case does not end when the sentence is over. Instead, it follows them out of the courthouse or prison doors in the guise of “collateral,” or non-penal, sanctions. The last several decades have seen unprecedented expansion in the number and severity of the collateral consequences of criminal convictions, which include sex offender registration, deportation and bars on employment and housing. Perhaps the most severe consequence is the involuntary commitment of “sexually violent predators.” Twenty states have now passed statutes, commonly known as “Sexually Violent Predator Acts” (SVPAs), which are being used to indefinitely confine thousands of individuals after they are released from prison.

The recent proliferation of these statutes has inspired scholars to critically examine the cost, effectiveness, and constitutionality of SVPAs. This Article considers involuntary commitment from the perspective of a reasonable person charged with a crime and facing a decision about whether to go to trial or plead guilty. It is hard to imagine a more severe abridgement of one’s liberties than involuntary commitment. Despite this, courts have consistently ruled that defendants have no constitutional right to be told that their guilty pleas could lead to involuntary commitment in a mental institution or prison-like setting for the remainder of their natural lives. Indeed, under the collateral consequences rule, courts have interpreted the Due Process Clause and the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to require warnings of only the “direct” consequences of guilty pleas, meaning the potential incarceratory, probationary, or monetary sentence.

This Article exposes the fiction of the direct-collateral divide and examines the doctrinally flawed rationale for the collateral consequences rule. It also critiques the rule for its singular focus on the extra-constitutional values of finality and efficiency in the administration of criminal justice. The current rule ignores the constitutional protections relevant to guilty pleas, with their underlying purpose of ensuring that defendants know what they are getting themselves into when they plead guilty.

Finally, the Article proposes a unique approach, a test of reasonableness, for this constitutional question so as to bring rationality to the intersection of collateral consequences and guilty pleas and to inject the defendant’s perspective into the process. A defendant should be entitled to pre-plea warnings about consequences, “direct” or “collateral,” whenever a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would deem knowledge of those consequences to be a significant factor in deciding whether to plead guilty. Consideration of the surrounding facts and circumstances, common in other areas of constitutional criminal procedure, would bring much-needed transparency and fairness to the plea process.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]