Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

[JEDI]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html?hpt=T1

-Some sex offenders can be kept behind bars indefinitely if deemed "sexually dangerous"

"The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority.


WTF?!

whats next? the govt can hold consitantly violent people pass their terms as well?

bad omen for our freedoms.

the US is turning more into a socialist fascist state.

a better way is to create laws like californias 3 strikes and your out. (3rd felony conviction = automatic 25yrs)

At least that way

 

[StageLeft]

I have actually wanted this in the past. I think they should more or less instead call it a life sentence (and mean it; not 25 years) but option to leave early. I think this country is overly hysterical with certain crimes but if you have a guy who's got a compulsive need to do God knows what and no psychiatrist around thinks he won't, he ought not to be let free until he simply commits another crime and then you catch him again, it's nuts.

Yeah it's some minority report aspect to it but really there are people who exist that truly cannot be helped; they cannot be allowed to roam amongst the rest of us.

 

[cganesh75]

and you are unhappy about this? i guess you would be happy when this "sexually dangerous" guy moves into your neighborhood after finishing his prison time huh?

 

[JEDI]

and you are unhappy about this? i guess you would be happy when this "sexually dangerous" guy moves into your neighborhood after finishing his prison time huh?

no, i dont want him living near me. just like i dont want a career criminal living near me.

but they served their time. thats the point.

our freedoms are being imposed upon.

 

[ichy]

Unfortunately they also ruled that life w/o parole sentences for juveniles who don't commit murder are unconstitutional

 

[Jaskalas]

....this is treason.

 

[cganesh75]

no, i dont want him living near me. just like i dont want a murderer living near me.

but they served their time. thats the point.

our freedoms are being imposed upon.

so where do you want the govt to send him? i sure dont want in my area.. nobody else does either.

 

[highland145]

no, i dont want him living near me. just like i dont want a career criminal living near me.

but they served their time. thats the point.

our freedoms are being imposed upon.

Everyone's happy to "stand up for freedom" until it's their child that gets raped/killed and they want to know why "this animal" was out of jail. After all, it was his ## offense against children. The "system" failed.

Bull shit. Society failed by not putting him under after the first ruined life.

 

[VirtualLarry]

you do the crime... you pay your time, and THAT'S IT!

This is un-american.


Oh yeah, edit:
"First they came for the child molesters, and I said nothing..."

 

[Jaskalas]

you do the crime... you pay your time, and THAT'S IT!

This is un-american.

There is no due process for this crime against humanity.

Whose Congress will overturn it?

 

[nonlnear]

I don't have a problem with some crimes being awarded real life sentences. I do have a problem with the way the term "sex offender" is used in American political and judicial rhetoric. The term is too broad to be useful, and when used as such it leads to bad policy. I'll have to wait and see more detail about exactly what is meant by this application of the term...

 

[TruePaige]

Wow. I am still in America right?

Of course they always start with the most reprehensible people when they make laws like this so that people like the above will support it.

 

[BoberFett]

I don't have a problem with some crimes being awarded real life sentences. I do have a problem with the way the term "sex offender" is used in American political and judicial rhetoric. The term is too broad to be useful, and when used as such it leads to bad policy. I'll have to wait and see more detail about exactly what is meant by this application of the term...

Think of the children!

 

[nonlnear]

Think of the children!

Yup, that's another catchphrase used to push bad policy.

 

[highland145]

I see responses on the left and right. Let's get to the point and make it personal: If it was your child/loved one what would your say then?

 

[Linflas]

And once again Scalia and Thomas stand up for the Constitution rather than the easy public opinion choice.

"Congress' power, however, is fixed by the Constitution," Thomas wrote. "It does not expand merely to suit the states' policy preferences, or to allow state officials to avoid difficult choices regarding the allocation of state funds." He was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.

 

[nick1985]

Good

 

[Linflas]

I see responses on the left and right. Let's get to the point and make it personal: If it was your child/loved one what would your say then?

I would recuse myself since I would be too personally involved to make a rational decision. If they feel these people can't be rehabilitated then change the laws regarding the length of sentence.

 

[MotF Bane]

Fuck the Constitution anyways.

 

[highland145]

I would recuse myself since I would be too personally involved to make a rational decision. If they feel these people can't be rehabilitated then change the laws regarding the length of sentence.

Agree on the sentences. The real question is "could you recuse yourself?" If you have children now then you know you wouldn't be able to and shouldn't. Rational should have started with the molester.

 

[highland145]

Fuck the Constitution anyways.

Why stop now.

 

[BoberFett]

I see responses on the left and right. Let's get to the point and make it personal: If it was your child/loved one what would your say then?

So if my child was murdered, I should be OK with the murderer getting paroled, but if my child was raped I should expect them to be behind bars forever? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Jaskalas]

I see responses on the left and right. Let's get to the point and make it personal: If it was your child/loved one what would your say then?

The person is to be put away with due process. Not arbitrarily indefinite detainment.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. The court merely extends the definition of "criminally insane" to cover dangerous sex offenders. Untreatable, violent, criminally insane individuals have been locked up indefinitely in mental institutions for decades. It's something where judicial review is obviously in order, however.

 

[PrinceofWands]

My issue with it surrounds who gets to define 'sexually dangerous'. If we are careful to define it as persons who have already committed violent acts against non-consensual persons (true rape, TRUE molestation), then I don't mind them rotting for life (though in my opinion anyone who's sentenced to rot for life should just be executed because good citizens shouldn't have to foot the bill for hopeless causes).

If, however, someone is allowed to include thought crimes (reading a perverse story, or watching extreme porn), or technically illegal but victimless crimes (statutory rape, sodomy, etc) in the definition then the entire country is over. Done. Finished. Wipe it all to a clean slate and start over time.