SCOTUS: Indefinite Lockup Of Sexual Criminals OK
05-17-2010, 07:55 AM
#1
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Comance county, OK
Posts: 11,383
SCOTUS: Indefinite Lockup Of Sexual Criminals OK
The US Supreme Court has ruled that sexually dangerous criminals may be locked up indefinitely.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100517/...x_offender_law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100517/...x_offender_law
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" after their prison terms are complete.
The high court reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered "sexually dangerous."
"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 by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
The high court reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered "sexually dangerous."
"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 by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
05-17-2010, 09:03 AM
#4
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,166
There's more info in the article and it does make you wonder. I despise child molesters but would also not want to see some "administrative process" administered abd decided by prison authorities to usurp our current legal system. Further into the linked article, it talks about a civil commitment and doesn't give more detail. I think it would be proper if there was some sort of court civil hearing wherein a DA proves to the judge that such a permanent prison sentence is appropriate, the accused has the right to object and a judge makes a final decision.
That may be what the civil commitment process entails but this article doesn't provide that information. It should have but didn't. Typical halfway reporting.
And yes, I know that most child molesters will never change BUT I also see a slippery slope if this takes away basic rights for one group of people because it would set a bad precedent for the rest of us. It starts with child molesters, then other criminal groups, then "subversives" or anti-government types or, gasp, tea partiers, etc. IMHO, this is something that needs to be done properly so it doesn't jeopardize other groups or set a bad precedent.
That may be what the civil commitment process entails but this article doesn't provide that information. It should have but didn't. Typical halfway reporting.
And yes, I know that most child molesters will never change BUT I also see a slippery slope if this takes away basic rights for one group of people because it would set a bad precedent for the rest of us. It starts with child molesters, then other criminal groups, then "subversives" or anti-government types or, gasp, tea partiers, etc. IMHO, this is something that needs to be done properly so it doesn't jeopardize other groups or set a bad precedent.
05-17-2010, 09:16 AM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 3,431
Originally Posted by CalHunter
There's more info in the article and it does make you wonder. I despise child molesters but would also not want to see some "administrative process" administered abd decided by prison authorities to usurp our current legal system. Further into the linked article, it talks about a civil commitment and doesn't give more detail. I think it would be proper if there was some sort of court civil hearing wherein a DA proves to the judge that such a permanent prison sentence is appropriate, the accused has the right to object and a judge makes a final decision.
That may be what the civil commitment process entails but this article doesn't provide that information. It should have but didn't. Typical halfway reporting.
And yes, I know that most child molesters will never change BUT I also see a slippery slope if this takes away basic rights for one group of people because it would set a bad precedent for the rest of us. It starts with child molesters, then other criminal groups, then "subversives" or anti-government types or, gasp, tea partiers, etc. IMHO, this is something that needs to be done properly so it doesn't jeopardize other groups or set a bad precedent.
That may be what the civil commitment process entails but this article doesn't provide that information. It should have but didn't. Typical halfway reporting.
And yes, I know that most child molesters will never change BUT I also see a slippery slope if this takes away basic rights for one group of people because it would set a bad precedent for the rest of us. It starts with child molesters, then other criminal groups, then "subversives" or anti-government types or, gasp, tea partiers, etc. IMHO, this is something that needs to be done properly so it doesn't jeopardize other groups or set a bad precedent.
We'll have to see how it goes, whether it works or not.
05-17-2010, 02:28 PM
#6
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burleson Texas
Posts: 12,560
Originally Posted by Fieldmouse
Rush just raised a great point. If we're allowed to hold those people we feel are still dangerous sexual predators indifinitely, why can't we do the same for terrorist?
Let the party begin!!
05-17-2010, 04:00 PM
#7
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 9,626
It starts with child molesters, then other criminal groups, then "subversives" or anti-government types or, gasp, tea partiers, etc. IMHO, this is something that needs to be done properly so it doesn't jeopardize other groups or set a bad precedent.
But then, you can't go my me. I consider sex offenses, especially those against minors, to be generally worse than assault and therefore deserving of fierce punishment.
05-17-2010, 04:53 PM
#8
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
When they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I was not a Jew, When they came for the ............
So who decides who else they can hold forever?
So who decides who else they can hold forever?
Last edited by James B; 05-17-2010 at 04:57 PM.
05-17-2010, 06:07 PM
#9
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
We really need some sex offender reform, we have teenagers becoming sex offenders for texting(sexting) or hooking up with their girlf from hs(senior/freshmen sorta deal), big difference between the hs kid and the 50yo pedophile with an 8yo.
A National Age of Consent might help inform young people of the law too. In one state a 50yo could hook up with a 16yo legally and in another a 20yo with a 17yo would be illegal and land him on the sex offender registry, and a convicted felon.
A National Age of Consent might help inform young people of the law too. In one state a 50yo could hook up with a 16yo legally and in another a 20yo with a 17yo would be illegal and land him on the sex offender registry, and a convicted felon.
05-17-2010, 07:53 PM
#10
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 8,938
I fear the implications will stretch to healthcare reform. The Court has expanded the 'necessary and proper' clause against a sexual predator intentionally so it won't raise many eyebrows.
When government healthcare reform reaches the Court on appeal, they have just given themselves additional precedent to cite in an ends-justify-the-means approach.
When government healthcare reform reaches the Court on appeal, they have just given themselves additional precedent to cite in an ends-justify-the-means approach.
