[1] On the opposite side, some governments links this analysis directly to prison terms, not complying to nulla poena sine lege principle.
The rule of law requires the social dangerousness to be assessed “on the basis of factual elements”[2] Also in Addington v. Texas,[3] the Supreme Court "held without dissent that in a civil commitment hearing the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a standard of proof on the issues of the patient's mental illness and of his danger to himself or to others equal to or greater than "clear and convincing" evidence".
[5] In the Elizabethan period, in England "came the Vagrancy Acts, providing sanctions against sturdy rogues and vagabonds, those wandering abroad without lawful or visible means of support, those loitering with intent, and those falling within similar arcane phraseology which still underpins the disorderly conduct statutes, regulations, and ordinances of many states, cities, and counties in the United States.
[11] Cuban law defines dangerousness (el estado peligroso) as "the special proclivity of a person to commit crimes, demonstrated by conduct that is observed to be in manifest contradiction with the norms of socialist morality."
If Cuba determines that someone is dangerous, the Criminal Code allows the state to impose "pre-criminal measures," including surveillance by the National Revolutionary Police and re-education for periods of one-to-four years.