14 research outputs found

    Sex Offender Civil Commitment to Prison Post-\u3cem\u3eKingsley\u3c/em\u3e

    Get PDF
    Today, an estimated 5400 people are civilly committed under state and federal sex offender programs. This Note surveys these civil commitment regimes and finds that seventeen jurisdictions (sixteen states and the federal government) have enacted legislative schemes that authorize the indefinite civil detention of people charged with, or previously convicted of, sex offenses to prisons or prison-like facilities—often for their entire lives. By charting the pervasiveness of sex offender civil commitment to prison, this Note provides new evidence that these sex offender civil commitment statutes are, in fact, punitive and, therefore, unconstitutional. Moreover, this Note argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson calls into question the Court’s logic in upholding sex offender civil commitment regimes in prior cases. Traditionally, civil commitment jurisprudence has turned on whether the legislature intends to punish—not merely confine—sex offenders. Kingsley, however, suggests that confinement may be found punitive based solely on the objective harshness of the conditions of incarceration, regardless of whether any state actor intended for the conditions to be punitive. If incarceration conditions may now constitute punishment regardless of governmental intent, it follows that the government may be punishing thousands of sex offenders without authorization. Indeed, as this Note shows, convicted prisoners and committed sex offenders commonly experience identical conditions of confinement

    Sex Offender Civil Commitment to Prison Post-\u3cem\u3eKingsley\u3c/em\u3e

    Get PDF
    Today, an estimated 5400 people are civilly committed under state and federal sex offender programs. This Note surveys these civil commitment regimes and finds that seventeen jurisdictions (sixteen states and the federal government) have enacted legislative schemes that authorize the indefinite civil detention of people charged with, or previously convicted of, sex offenses to prisons or prison-like facilities—often for their entire lives. By charting the pervasiveness of sex offender civil commitment to prison, this Note provides new evidence that these sex offender civil commitment statutes are, in fact, punitive and, therefore, unconstitutional. Moreover, this Note argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson calls into question the Court’s logic in upholding sex offender civil commitment regimes in prior cases. Traditionally, civil commitment jurisprudence has turned on whether the legislature intends to punish—not merely confine—sex offenders. Kingsley, however, suggests that confinement may be found punitive based solely on the objective harshness of the conditions of incarceration, regardless of whether any state actor intended for the conditions to be punitive. If incarceration conditions may now constitute punishment regardless of governmental intent, it follows that the government may be punishing thousands of sex offenders without authorization. Indeed, as this Note shows, convicted prisoners and committed sex offenders commonly experience identical conditions of confinement

    Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Treatment Failure Detection Depends on Monitoring Interval and Microbiological Method Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment failure detection depends on monitoring interval and microbiological method behalf of the Col

    No full text
    Citation Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment failure detection depends on monitoring interval and microbiological method. ABSTRACT Debate persists about monitoring method (culture or smear) and interval (monthly or less frequently) during treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). We analysed existing data and estimated the effect of monitoring strategies on timing of failure detection. We identified studies reporting microbiological response to MDR-TB treatment and solicited individual patient data from authors. Frailty survival models were used to estimate pooled relative risk of failure detection in the last 12 months of treatment; hazard of failure using monthly culture was the reference. Data were obtained for 5410 patients across 12 observational studies. During the last 12 months of treatment, failure detection occurred in a median of 3 months by monthly culture; failure detection was delayed by 2, 7, and 9 months relying on bimonthly culture, monthly smear and bimonthly smear, respectively. Risk (95% CI) of failure detection delay resulting from monthly smear relative to culture is 0.38 (0.34-0.42) for all patients and 0.33 (0.25-0.42) for HIV-co-infected patients. Failure detection is delayed by reducing the sensitivity and frequency of the monitoring method. Monthly monitoring of sputum cultures from patients receiving MDR-TB treatment is recommended. Expanded laboratory capacity is needed for high-quality culture, and for smear microscopy and rapid molecular tests. @ERSpublications Monthly culture monitoring is crucial to earlier detection of treatment failure in MDR-TB patient

    Univariate, time-varying Cox proportional hazards analysis of aggressive regimen and time to death.

    No full text
    1<p>Continuous variable, mean (standard deviation) presented.</p>2<p><18.5 in women; <20 in men; or malnutrition established clinically.</p>3<p>≤30% in women; ≤36% in men; when missing, also used hemoglobin ≤10 in women and ≤12 in men.</p>4<p>Dyspnea; resting respiratory rate greater than 26/minute.</p>5<p>Resistance to the following 12 drugs or drug classes was tested: capreomycin, cycloserine, ethambutol, ethionamide, isoniazid, kanamycin or amikacin, PAS, pyrazinamide, rifampicin, streptomycin, first-generation fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin), and later-generation fluoroquinolones (gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin).</p>6<p>Isolate resistant to at least isoniazid, rifampin, fluoroquinolone, and injectable (kanamycin, capreomycin, or amikacin).</p>7<p>This includes the following comorbidities: cardiovascular disease (12), diabetes mellitus (18), hepatitis or cirrhosis (10), epilepsy/seizures (11), renal insufficiency (7), psychiatric disorder (116), ever smoked (66), ever used/abused alcohol or other substance (52).</p
    corecore