Seling v. Young — Stevens, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Stevens dissented from the Court’s refusal to permit respondent to prove that the Washington commitment scheme was punitive in purpose or effect based on the actual conditions of confinement. He would have allowed Young to present evidence that detainees received little or no treatment and were confined under conditions comparable to, or worse than, criminal imprisonment, because such proof could establish that the statute was criminal for federal constitutional purposes. Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment, and Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Souter, would have adopted broader limits on implementation-based challenges.