Does Utah need a sexual predator statute? An examination of the constitutionality of sexual predator laws

Sexual predator statutes are surrounded by debate due to their ability to civilly commit a sex offender after he has served a prison sentence. Further questions on this issue relate to the terms that these laws use to define a "sexual predator." The terms "mental abnormality" and "antisocial personality disorder" describe a particular type of offender whose mental condition has predisposed him to commit acts of sexual violence. Conflicting precedents and the absence of a Supreme Court ruling specifically relating to sexual predator laws have riddled the issue with argument. I argue that sexual predator laws are unconstitutional. They are criminal in nature and thus violate the ex post facto prohibition of the United States Constitution. States require a showing of dangerousness and mental illness in order to commit an offender. Sexual predator statutes allow a state to commit a person indefinitely based on behavior that is not attributable to a clear mental illness. These laws use terms to describe "sexual predators" that are not recognized by the mainstream psychiatric community. For these reasons I argue that Utah should stop all attempts to enact a sexual predator law. Utah does not need this type of law because there are ways already in the statutes to keep sex offenders incarcerated. Among these constitutional solutions are Utah's civil commitment statute for sex offenders, the involuntary commitment law and the indefinite sentencing system.