consecutive sentences or concurrent sentences. The Court has held that the decision to impose concurrent 
or consecutive sentences was a judicial determination, not a jury determination, and thus not subject to 
Apprendi’s rule that any sentencing enhancement factor must be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable 
doubt. Oregon v. Ice,555 U.S. 160 (2009). Justice Ginsberg wrote, 
“Most States continue the common law-tradition:  They entrust to judges’ unfettered discretion the 
decision whether sentences for discrete offenses shall be served consecutively or concurrently. In some 
States, sentences for multiple offenses are presumed to run consecutively, but sentencing judges may order 
concurrent sentences upon finding cause therefor. The other States, including Oregon, constrain judges’ 
discretion by requiring them to find certain facts before imposing consecutive rather than concurrent 
sentences.”
2 
Civil Commitment of Violent Sexual Offenders 
Some sexual offenders may still be dangerous even after they serve their entire prison term. Both state 
and federal laws allow the continued confinement of violent sexual predators after the expiration of their 
criminal sentences. In 1997, the Court upheld a Kansas statute finding that such confinement did not violate 
the double jeopardy or ex post facto prohibitions. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997). In 2010, the Court 
decided that in enacting the Adam Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. 4248, Congress had not exceeded its authority by 
allowing civil commitment after an offender has served his or her criminal sanction. Justice Breyer wrote, 
“the statute is a necessary and proper means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to 
create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those 
imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the 
federal imprisonment of others.” 
3 
Link to 2015 report on Federal Sentencing (includes incarceration and alternatives) (link also included 
below with split probation. 
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/
alternatives/20150617_Alternatives.pdf 
2. Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, at 163-164 (2009). 
3. United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126, at (2010). 
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
121