Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

[cliftonite]

Why couldn't they change the existing laws to increase mandatory sentences or deny parole instead of letting it get this far?

 

[werepossum]

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.

Two points. First, Hinkley was found not guilty by reason of insanity; it is perfectly logical that he be held indefinitely.

Second, "15 goin' on 30", while not uncommon, is still 15. 13 goin' on 30 is still 13. Children looking for validation, affection, even pure sex in adult ways are still children. Certainly an adult seduced by a 13 or 15 year old girl should not be punished as a violent rapist - but he's still a child f@cker who deserves what he gets.

 

[blackangst1]

Two points. First, Hinkley was found not guilty by reason of insanity; it is perfectly logical that he be held indefinitely.

Second, "15 goin' on 30", while not uncommon, is still 15. 13 goin' on 30 is still 13. Children looking for validation, affection, even pure sex in adult ways are still children. Certainly an adult seduced by a 13 or 15 year old girl should not be punished as a violent rapist - but he's still a child f@cker who deserves what he gets.

Based on US law, depending on state and circumstance, of course youre correct.

 

[Jaskalas]

Solicitor General Elena Kagan successfully argued the government's case in front of the Supreme Court. Kagan has now been nominated to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Kagan in January compared the government's power to commit sexual predators to its power to quarantine federal inmates whose sentences have expired but have a highly contagious and deadly disease.

"Would anybody say that the federal government would not have Article I power to effect that kind of public safety measure? And the exact same thing is true here. This is exactly what Congress is doing here," she said.

Guess we know where Obama and his idea of a Supreme Court stands.

Hope and change means no due process and indefinite detention.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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.

People are already being sent to prison because the porn they produce IN ANOTHER STATE violates the decency laws in a single community of the state. Free speech is all but dead in America.

 

[werepossum]

Based on US law, depending on state and circumstance, of course youre correct.

I would not argue that all nations should adopt our laws and culture, nor that our ages are necessarily properly selected. My grandmothers married at fourteen and fifteen, my wife's grandmother at twelve, and I first had sex at fourteen. (Though not because I wanted to or was ready, simply because I couldn't think of a cool way to say "No thanks, you're kind of repulsive.") Ages will always be somewhat arbitrary, and kids will always push to more quickly receive the perceived benefits of adulthood (especially without the responsibilities.)

I would argue in general that men of 18 or greater have no business engaging in sexual behavior with anyone more than two years younger, no matter how outrageously she flirts or dresses.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Those of you that are Faux raging over this need to get your heads checked. Rapists and child molesters are the most sickening and psychologically fucked people in our society. The 10 or so years they serve is NOTHING compared to the psychological damage they inflict on their victims. Their victims will have to deal with that for the rest of their lives!

While they are at it, they need to stop separating these sex offenders from the rest of the criminals in prison. Even in the eyes of the cold blooded killers, child molesters are at the bottom of the totem pole in prison. So to prevent harm or even death towards these child molesters, they keep them separated from the normal prison population. They don't deserve to be safe, they deserve to feel fear for their lives like their victims did.

 

[Jaskalas]

Those of you that are Faux raging over this need to get your heads checked. Rapists and child molesters are the most sickening and psychologically fucked people in our society. The 10 or so years they serve is NOTHING compared to the psychological damage they inflict on their victims. Their victims will have to deal with that for the rest of their lives!

Can we go for the Jews and Muslims next?

Anyone in jail "whose sentences have expired but have a highly contagious and deadly disease" with a religious background should apply.

 

[ElFenix]

thomas writing the dissent with scalia joining

 

[TruePaige]

Since the National Revolution public opinion has become increasingly preoccupied with questions of demographic policy and the continuing decline in the birthrate. However, it is not only the decline in population which is a cause for serious concern but equally the increasingly evident genetic composition of our people. Whereas the hereditarily healthy families have for the most part adopted a policy of having only one or two children, countless numbers of inferiors and those suffering from hereditary conditions are reproducing unrestrainedly while their sick and asocial offspring burden the community.

Next on the agenda: T-4 Programs (Not the terminator either). This is really a very slippery slope.

 

[Ronstang]

Sex offenders, especially if it involves children, should simply be shot. If gay is a sexual orientation then so is pedophilia and other weird sex crap. They are not going to change. Might as well address the problem right off and deal with it.

 

[Jhhnn]

People are already being sent to prison because the porn they produce IN ANOTHER STATE violates the decency laws in a single community of the state. Free speech is all but dead in America.

Unfortunately, you are correct, or nearly so. It's an area where States' Rights, as currently exercised, create problems... never mind that many of those raving about freedom in this thread are strong supporters of such, despite the glaring deficiencies of those beliefs...

 

[NoStateofMind]

I like how they put you in a position to (in perception) defend sex offenders. When you really look at the situation, that's not the case. The supreme court just ruled in favor of McCain's Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation and Detention Act of 2010. Essentially, any questions about that Bill's Constitutionality will be directed to this very decision from SCOTUS.

IMO anyone who supports this Bill in any way should be brought up on conspiracy to commit treason charges.

 

[thegimp03]

Castrate these people. Maybe after that, they won't have that drive to stick their dicks into little girls anymore.

 

[Darwin333]

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

I don't want a habitual speeder living in my neighborhood either. I damn sure don't think the government should be able to keep you imprisoned beyond your sentence because of that desire though.

What exactly is the point of a sentence if the Government can hold you indefinitely when they deem?

I kinda like the whole "judge and jury" thing we have. I agree some people shouldn't be let out but that is easily accomplished through other means.

 

[Darwin333]

Those of you that are Faux raging over this need to get your heads checked. Rapists and child molesters are the most sickening and psychologically fucked people in our society. The 10 or so years they serve is NOTHING compared to the psychological damage they inflict on their victims. Their victims will have to deal with that for the rest of their lives!

While they are at it, they need to stop separating these sex offenders from the rest of the criminals in prison. Even in the eyes of the cold blooded killers, child molesters are at the bottom of the totem pole in prison. So to prevent harm or even death towards these child molesters, they keep them separated from the normal prison population. They don't deserve to be safe, they deserve to feel fear for their lives like their victims did.

So so you completely disagree with the United States Constitution or just certain parts?

 

[Jhhnn]

So so you completely disagree with the United States Constitution or just certain parts?

He just interprets it differently. In his world, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment apparently applies to both at the same time, not either one by itself...

 

[Hacp]

Sex offenders, especially if it involves children, should simply be shot. If gay is a sexual orientation then so is pedophilia and other weird sex crap. They are not going to change. Might as well address the problem right off and deal with it.

If the jury decides to shoot the sex offender, I have no problem with that. However, unless it is a matter of national security, government should not have the right to hold you indefinitely long after your sentence passes.

 

[BladeVenom]

Sex offenders, especially if it involves children, should simply be shot.

So you think a 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old should be shot?

A 17 year old who takes a provocative picture of themselves should be shot?

If you find out that some porn you've looked at had a girl who was only 17 at the time would you shoot yourself over it?

 

[shortylickens]

I dont know if anybody saw the news but the Supreme court just recently ruled that juveniles cannot serve life sentences for anything anymore.

Read it on Reuters and just decided to add it here. This seems like a decent Supreme Court thread.

 

[Zorkorist]

Sex War is the new, Drug War.

This is probably when we begin to wear unisex outfits.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

I dont know if anybody saw the news but the Supreme court just recently ruled that juveniles cannot serve life sentences for anything anymore.

Read it on Reuters and just decided to add it here. This seems like a decent Supreme Court thread.

That's pretty much a no-brainer.

By definition, a juvenile doesn't know what he is doing.

-John

 

[shira]

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.

The new ruling doesn't just apply to convicted criminals, so there may have been no sentence in the first place.

The justification given by the court is that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to hold those deemed to be sexually dangerous to the community. That holding does NOT require that a person be convicted of a crime.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Had the Supreme Court not banned the death penalty for child rapists just two years ago this wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Zorkorist]

What in the world does the Supreme Court have to do with Child Rapiists?

THAT might be the problem.

-John