Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

[highland145]

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?

Don't know where the murder came in but no. Never said I agreed with parole for 1st degree murder.

If it's a crime against a child, molestation or murder, the life +.

And you're answer to my question "if it were your child?" is?

 

[nick1985]

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.

Good post. Agree 100%

 

[highland145]

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

Like Linflas said, extend the sentences.

 

[Hacp]

Wow. Sex offenders should have a trial and serve the sentence they were given. They should not be held indefinitely.

 

[BoberFett]

Don't know where the murder came in but no. Never said I agreed with parole for 1st degree murder.

If it's a crime against a child, molestation or murder, the life +.

And you're answer to my question "if it were your child?" is?

Honestly, I can't even put myself in those shoes. I don't think anybody can until they're there. I know everyone on the intarwebz loves to get all high and mighty with their "Just put a bullet in the fucker" e-toughguy answers, but then again most people are morons.

And I do have a 10 year old daughter, so I realize there's every possibility that she'll be assaulted someday. I hope for her sake it never happens but I plan to prepare her for such an incident.

 

[Jaskalas]

Wow. Sex offenders should have a trial and serve the sentence they were given. They should not be held indefinitely.

Exactly.

 

[highland145]

Honestly, I can't even put myself in those shoes. I don't think anybody can until they're there. I know everyone on the intarwebz loves to get all high and mighty with their "Just put a bullet in the fucker" e-toughguy answers, but then again most people are morons.

And I do have a 10 year old daughter, so I realize there's every possibility that she'll be assaulted someday. I hope for her sake it never happens but I plan to prepare her for such an incident.

Weapons training, I hope.

I see both. The right (me) with a bullet and the left with bleeding hearts for the molester. And I see more lefties looking for my bullet when it, unfortunately, gets up close and personal. They don't seem to understand my point of view until it happens to them.

 

[Linflas]

Weapons training, I hope.

I see both. The right (me) with a bullet and the left with bleeding hearts for the molester. And I see more lefties looking for my bullet when it, unfortunately, gets up close and personal. They don't seem to understand my point of view until it happens to them.

If justice is nothing more than revenge then we really don't need courts, lawyers, or jails. All that is needed is an outraged mob, a tree, and a rope. The reason we have a justice system is not to get revenge for the victim and family, it is to obtain justice for society which includes the victim and their family. The moment you start personalizing it you start down the road back toward the mob, rope, and tree.

 

[ichy]

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.

I agree as well, however the US has very strong protections for free speech so I doubt that anyone will ever be successfully prosecuted for reading twisted stories.

 

[MotF Bane]

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.

This.

 

[highland145]

If justice is nothing more than revenge then we really don't need courts, lawyers, or jails. All that is needed is an outraged mob, a tree, and a rope. The reason we have a justice system is not to get revenge for the victim and family, it is to obtain justice for society which includes the victim and their family. The moment you start personalizing it you start down the road back toward the mob, rope, and tree.

I agree. It is about justice. And justice for a child molester should be extremely harsh, a deterrent. Then the victim/ family may feel some justice was served. Do you think justice was served when a multiple molester gets caught again?

And your answer to my question " if it was your child"?

 

[Exterous]

Regardless of the crime the government should not be able to say - 'You were sentenced for 25 years but now, after 25 years we have decided it's not enough so you must serve more. Perhaps the rest of your life - if we think you should'

Maximum sentence is determined during the case not after. This is a bad bad decision (If we are worried about people getting out early the maximum sentence needs to be increased at the trial verdict stage since it can be commuted)

 

[BoberFett]

If justice is nothing more than revenge then we really don't need courts, lawyers, or jails. All that is needed is an outraged mob, a tree, and a rope. The reason we have a justice system is not to get revenge for the victim and family, it is to obtain justice for society which includes the victim and their family. The moment you start personalizing it you start down the road back toward the mob, rope, and tree.

Well said.

 

[Linflas]

I agree. It is about justice. And justice for a child molester should be extremely harsh, a deterrent. Then the victim/ family may feel some justice was served. Do you think justice was served when a multiple molester gets caught again?

And your answer to my question " if it was your child"?

Ok I will answer it. I would want the SOB locked up forever, if such laws did not exist I might become single focused on changing those laws. What I would not do is trash due process and the US Constitution in my pursuit of my personal vendetta and if I attempted to do so I would hope that those not personally involved in the way I am would prevail and prevent me from doing so. I think you and I may agree on the sentencing, I just disagree with any court, much less the Supreme Court, allowing a sentence to be extended indefinitely past the maximum sentence allowed by the laws in effect at the time the act was committed. As I said initially the way to do this is not by judicial fiat but rather by legislators elected by the people.

 

[blackangst1]

Very bad desicion IMHO. But then, Ive always thought the Walsh law was too.

And interestingly enough, as a side note, a few posters in this thread I usually disagree with, I agree with. Interesting.

 

[highland145]

Ok I will answer it. I would want the SOB locked up forever, if such laws did not exist I might become single focused on changing those laws. What I would not do is trash due process and the US Constitution in my pursuit of my personal vendetta and if I attempted to do so I would hope that those not personally involved in the way I am would prevail and prevent me from doing so. I think you and I may agree on the sentencing, I just disagree with any court, much less the Supreme Court, allowing a sentence to be extended indefinitely past the maximum sentence allowed by the laws in effect at the time the act was committed. As I said initially the way to do this is not by judicial fiat but rather by legislators elected by the people.

Excellent. We're 95%+. I pray none of us ever find out but if and if the opportunity arose, V.

Legislatures don't have the balls to make tough law until public outrage at some heinous crime takes place. IIRC, the SCOTUS has set precedence in the past because politicians are cowering in a closet.

 

[werepossum]

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

Now all I have to figure out is whether I want five Scalias and four Thomases, or four Scalias and five Thomases. Sentencing needs to be fixed, but not by detaining people who have served the legally established sentences. The most I would support would be detention in a semi-secure half-way house through parole and a mandatory ankle bracelet after. (And if it were my child's or wife's predator, I'd want a short sentence, so I wouldn't get too old to list a heavy shotgun.)

Prince, not all statutory rapes are victimless. There's a big difference between the 18 year old who nails a 16 year old and the 35 year old who nails a 12 year old.

 

[woolfe9999]

If you read the article carefully, you'll notice that the majority opinion states that this isn't limited to sex offenders. The statute being ruled on may pertain to sex offenders, but the court is saying that this can apply to anyone who presents a danger to society.

The true problem with this is the notion of any sort of indefinate detention, IMO. This isn't a question of how much time we think a certain class of offender should serve. If we want sex offenders to serve more time, we can modify the criminal statutes to provide longer terms. But allowing the government to indefinately detain people under the guise of "civil commitment" is extremely disquieting. To me, at least.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that Kagan's office argued the state's position on this. I can see it possibly coming up in the confirmation hearings, but I wonder if the repubs will want to make political hay with this given that it involves "child molesters."

- wolf

 

[Via]

Terrible, terrible idea.

If I'm in law enforcement I want to know exactly what a sex offender is thinking before he or she is released.

I want to know if they think they need follow-up (non prison) help, I want to hear them brag that they're going to rape again, I want to hear it all.

What I don't want is them potentially covering up what they truly feel to make sure they're released when they're sentence is up.
__________________

 

[Hacp]

Another thing to point out is that sex offenders are overwhelmingly male. This law is blatant discrimination, targeting a disproportionate amount of males(sarcasm)!!!!

 

[highland145]

Another thing to point out is that sex offenders are overwhelmingly male. This law is blatant discrimination, targeting a disproportionate amount of males(sarcasm)!!!!

Skeert?

 

[Patranus]

If you read the article carefully, you'll notice that the majority opinion states that this isn't limited to sex offenders. The statute being ruled on may pertain to sex offenders, but the court is saying that this can apply to anyone who presents a danger to society.

Good catch. Very disturbing.

This entire idea of "pre crime" is a very bad one.

 

[highland145]

Legislatures don't have the balls to make tough law until public outrage at some heinous crime takes place. IIRC, the SCOTUS has set precedence in the past because politicians are cowering in a closet.

Quoting myself because I missed this in the original article.

Looks like the politicians were the ones to pass this law to start with so I will have to cut them some slack. But it does fall into the "act only because of public outcry" category.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/17/high-court-upholds-sex-offender-law/

the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. A provision of that law allowed federal prosecutors to seek court-ordered "civil commitment" of sex offenders whose criminal sentences were about to end.

So where do you stand knowing Congress set this up in the first place?

 

[Jhhnn]

Civil commitment has a long history in this country, and carries a whole set of checks, balances, and judicial reviews with it. John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate Reagan, is being held under such statutes. There are many others, as well.

The law recognizes the difference between criminal, insane, incompetent, and criminally insane conduct, and has for a long time. Sometimes it takes time to figure out just where a particular offender stands on that spectrum, and just how dangerous (or not) they really are.

Child pornography is a particularly thorny area, with current statutes being based on the idea that children used in the making of it are being abused. It's hard to argue against that in the case of individuals who are not sexually mature, but enters into a grey area, I think, when the subjects are sexually mature. It's even moreso when actual sex acts are performed by somebody legally defined as a criminal perpetrator. I've met young women who are 15 goin' on 30, for example, and I'm sure the same is true for young men, as well. Individual cases need to be judged on their merits, not on arbitrary templates applied often by whim... or bias wrt interracial or same sex acts. The case of Matthew Limon epitomizes this kind of irrational hatred, for example.

 

[blackangst1]

Civil commitment has a long history in this country, and carries a whole set of checks, balances, and judicial reviews with it. John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate Reagan, is being held under such statutes. There are many others, as well.

The law recognizes the difference between criminal, insane, incompetent, and criminally insane conduct, and has for a long time. Sometimes it takes time to figure out just where a particular offender stands on that spectrum, and just how dangerous (or not) they really are.

Child pornography is a particularly thorny area, with current statutes being based on the idea that children used in the making of it are being abused. It's hard to argue against that in the case of individuals who are not sexually mature, but enters into a grey area, I think, when the subjects are sexually mature. It's even moreso when actual sex acts are performed by somebody legally defined as a criminal perpetrator. I've met young women who are 15 goin' on 30, for example, and I'm sure the same is true for young men, as well. Individual cases need to be judged on their merits, not on arbitrary templates applied often by whim... or bias wrt interracial or same sex acts. The case of Matthew Limon epitomizes this kind of irrational hatred, for example.

Pretty good points. /Agree.