If you do a crime and the time you are free to go. Not so fast, sex offenders!

[Dave]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/1...ex-offenders-can-be-held-indefinitely/?hpt=T2

I am very, VERY against this. Yes, I know the rate of these folks committing another crime is very high, but this is like holding people against their will and is unconstitutional. I don't care what the Supreme Court says as they've now made 2 very, very bad choices - the other being the businesses using unlimited money to get politically involved.

In short, the Supreme Court has ruled that in the case of sex offenders only (for now) the government can hold someone indefinitely even after they've served the legally prescribed sentence. So Prisoner A is set to serve 10 years, he serves the 10 years and the government says, "Nah. He'll just do it again." So they can keep him in jail. Forever.

How in the hell can the Supreme Court - who are supposed to be the fucking GUARDIANS of the Constitution - rule that someone can be held WITHOUT TRIAL based on what the guy MIGHT do? Wouldn't the rule of habeas corpus apply?

Lawyers of the boards, what do you think?

 

[Espy]

If you do a crime and do your time you are free to go. Not so fast, sex offenders

Lawyers of the boards, what do you think?

I'm actually really only experienced in Bird Law.

 

[Chibibar]

If you do a crime and do your time you are free to go. Not so fast, sex offenders

now on one hand, I am very against sexual predator of many level especially when it is against our children, but at the same time, this is bad precedent for the Supreme court since there ARE laws in the constitution.

now here is a question, what if they change the sentence requirement instead and go with 3 strikes? after the 3rd offense you get life prison. At least it is within the law right?

 

[Dave]

If you do a crime and do your time you are free to go. Not so fast, sex offenders

They can set a 3 strikes law that will greatly increase jail time, but they can't go back and do that to people already in prison as they were not convicted under those rules.

I KNOW that my view in this is unpopular. But I don't see how we can hold people based on the CHANCE that they will commit a future crime.

 

[Chibibar]

If you do a crime and do your time you are free to go. Not so fast, sex offenders

They can set a 3 strikes law that will greatly increase jail time, but they can't go back and do that to people already in prison as they were not convicted under those rules.

I KNOW that my view in this is unpopular. But I don't see how we can hold people based on the CHANCE that they will commit a future crime.

It will like that movie Minority Report.

 

[Covar]

Hmm, a 7-2 decision. There must be something more that is not listed in the article. I'll have to look it over more before I can agree one way or the other.

 

[Dave]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

 

[Dubyamn]

Actually the data from the department of corrections says that there isn't a high recidivism rate and the recidivism rate is higher in other crimes.

I really really dislike our current system where the sex offender label is handed out to many crimes that it shouldn't be applied to and because that label never comes off you have to keep it for the rest of your life. But to declare them sane for trial but too insane for release is a god damn violation of their rights.

 

[drawn_inward]

Slightly off topic rant: The Supreme Court appointments should not be for life. Those retards aren't bloody royalty.
/rant

I'm of two minds about this. I think it's a slippery slope of losing individual rights. However, if anyone deserves to lose their rights, it's a sex offender. Maybe if this only occurs to the child molesters and rapists, then it wouldn't be such a volatile decision.

 

[Covar]

See, the CNN blog completely skips over the whole "mentally ill" part.

Also (I read most of the Opinion and Dissent) it looks like this was an issue of states rights vs federal. The idea that a mentally ill sex offender could be continued to be held under control of the state did not seem be be considered at all.

 

[Dave]

Reading through this I agree with Justice Thomas. I think this ruling was a bad idea.

For those of you wanting to know a little more back story, 5 guys are being held (according to CNN there are 83 total being held based on this rule, but only these 5 are named as the plaintiffs) past their date of release. 3 are there for child porn (you all know how I feel about that), 1 for sexual abuse of a child (ages & types of abuse unknown) and 1 for violent sexual abuse of a child. They were told 6 days before release that they were being held past their dates because they were deemed dangerous. They sued and WON. The government appealed and again the plaintiffs WON. It is not until the US Supreme Court that the government finally wins.

Look, I know these are bad guys and what they did is abhorrent. But to hold them because of what they MIGHT do in the future is an anathema to the US judicial system. What I don't like is the fact that the court is using old statutes and are denying that this gives Congress the ability to create a police state as it is "applied to only a small fraction of federal prisoners, and its reach is limited to individuals already “in the custody of the” Federal Government." Well as long as they are only targeting a FEW people then that's perfectly fine, right?

 

[Norris]

Slightly off topic rant: The Supreme Court appointments should not be for life. Those retards aren't bloody royalty.
/rant

No they aren't, if they were then their children would take over when they die. Lifetime appointment protects the court form ever being too impacted by the stupidity of the political climate. I like that idea.

On this case...gosh that is a scary ruling. I don't care if it involves offenders deemed mentally ill, it has set up a precedent where the government can decide to hold you indefinitely and there's not much you can do about it. Jeez, guys like Glenn Beck freak over the government buying a controlling share in GM...this is the shit to be afraid of.

 

[crono1224]

Reading through this I agree with Justice Thomas. I think this ruling was a bad idea.

For those of you wanting to know a little more back story, 5 guys are being held (according to CNN there are 83 total being held based on this rule, but only these 5 are named as the plaintiffs) past their date of release. 3 are there for child porn (you all know how I feel about that), 1 for sexual abuse of a child (ages & types of abuse unknown) and 1 for violent sexual abuse of a child. They were told 6 days before release that they were being held past their dates because they were deemed dangerous. They sued and WON. The government appealed and again the plaintiffs WON. It is not until the US Supreme Court that the government finally wins.

Look, I know these are bad guys and what they did is abhorrent. But to hold them because of what they MIGHT do in the future is an anathema to the US judicial system. What I don't like is the fact that the court is using old statutes and are denying that this gives Congress the ability to create a police state as it is "applied to only a small fraction of federal prisoners, and its reach is limited to individuals already “in the custody of the” Federal Government." Well as long as they are only targeting a FEW people then that's perfectly fine, right?

It goes to the reason for incarciration; Punishment, Isolation, Rehabilitation, Justice and Redemption. Clearly this one is focusing on isolating these people from society, and not for rehabilitation or even justice.

 

[Chazwozel]

Reading through this I agree with Justice Thomas. I think this ruling was a bad idea.

For those of you wanting to know a little more back story, 5 guys are being held (according to CNN there are 83 total being held based on this rule, but only these 5 are named as the plaintiffs) past their date of release. 3 are there for child porn (you all know how I feel about that), 1 for sexual abuse of a child (ages & types of abuse unknown) and 1 for violent sexual abuse of a child. They were told 6 days before release that they were being held past their dates because they were deemed dangerous. They sued and WON. The government appealed and again the plaintiffs WON. It is not until the US Supreme Court that the government finally wins.

Look, I know these are bad guys and what they did is abhorrent. But to hold them because of what they MIGHT do in the future is an anathema to the US judicial system. What I don't like is the fact that the court is using old statutes and are denying that this gives Congress the ability to create a police state as it is "applied to only a small fraction of federal prisoners, and its reach is limited to individuals already “in the custody of the” Federal Government." Well as long as they are only targeting a FEW people then that's perfectly fine, right?

The fact is they already are convicted for something they did do. Once their sentence is up, that should be a time for reevaluation, and not just letting them back out into society. They are evaluated by psychiatric diagnostic tests and if deemed unfit for reentry into society, they are made to stay longer. If anything that's the whole idea behind corrections isn't it? Rehabilitation? I don't see how this violates the constitution as these people have already been proven guilty and are not eligible for due process.

As far as I'm concerned these people can't be placed under the same standards are "do the crime, do the time, and leave". That's part of the problem with corrections. I'm more than happy with my tax dollars going into keeping child molesters in prison.

 

[Dave]

What about drug dealers? They have a higher rate of re-offending than sex offenders and they employ dangerous & violent means also. Why not keep them in?

 

[Chazwozel]

What about drug dealers? They have a higher rate of re-offending than sex offenders and they employ dangerous & violent means also. Why not keep them in?

Drug dealers are another can of worms. I think it's safe to say that most if not all child molesters are mentally unfit to be a part of society. Last I checked a drug dealer won't step out of the shadows and force you to buy his heroine.

 

[Dave]

A 19 year old dating a 16 or 17 can have consensual sex and be branded a sex offender. A kid getting a text message from a girl with a picture of herself naked is considered a sex offender.

So how are we drawing the line? It's a bad precedent and is a terrible ruling, regardless of what you think of the individuals. Take the emotion out of it and look at it legally.

 

[Chibibar]

What about drug dealers? They have a higher rate of re-offending than sex offenders and they employ dangerous & violent means also. Why not keep them in?

I have to agree with Dave that is this a bad precedent. First we start off the small like child molesters, ok. no body is going to fight against that (and probably not) later 10 years from now they might add, lets add drug dealers, later mass murderers, later hackers, later people who cheat their taxes, etc etc.

 

[Chazwozel]

A 19 year old dating a 16 or 17 can have consensual sex and be branded a sex offender. A kid getting a text message from a girl with a picture of herself naked is considered a sex offender.

So how are we drawing the line? It's a bad precedent and is a terrible ruling, regardless of what you think of the individuals. Take the emotion out of it and look at it legally.

Ok so say that 19 year gets a year jail time (I don't agree with that kind of ruling but whatever). He's going to be evaluated by a doctor and probably some medical board not associated with the prison and most likely let go. I don't think this is about that. I think it's about the 43 year old creep who brutally rapes a 10 year old girl and gets 20 to life for it, and essentially is getting denied parole.

 

[Dave]

3 of these guys are there for owning (not making) child porn. Unless there is more to their cases than I have been able to find out.

 

[Chazwozel]

What about drug dealers? They have a higher rate of re-offending than sex offenders and they employ dangerous & violent means also. Why not keep them in?

I have to agree with Dave that is this a bad precedent. First we start off the small like child molesters, ok. no body is going to fight against that (and probably not) later 10 years from now they might add, lets add drug dealers, later mass murderers, later hackers, later people who cheat their taxes, etc etc.[/QUOTE]

By that logic, what's the point of establishing a prison system at all. You can follow down that path too. Prison if for people who break the big laws, prison is for people who have misdemeanors, prison is for people that spit on the sidewalk...

---------- Post added at 01:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

3 of these guys are there for owning (not making) child porn. Unless there is more to their cases than I have been able to find out.

Good. As far as I'm concerned people who own it are only helping those who make it peddle it around. They're one in the same.

 

[Dave]

Graydon Comstock is a convicted recipient of child pornography. He was sentenced to three years in prison for his offense. However, when he was about to be released, the Attorney General certified to the courts that Comstock was a “sexually dangerous person” and needed to be indefinitely committed.

The lead plaintiff. Is not a violent criminal (just a fucked up perverted Human being).

 

[SpecialKO]

I'm more than happy with my tax dollars going into keeping child molesters in prison.

I think you may be missing Dave's point. The problem here is that the Supreme Court has upheld Congress' belief that they can decide, via legislation, that <insert group> can be held beyond the length of what was considered a legally-appropriate sentence with no further considerations necessary.

They're not talking about setting a federal statute for increasing the length of prison time involved in the sentencing of child molesters, or extending the rehabilitative process.

The decision, at least judging from the dozen or so pages I read, seems based around whether Congress can make a law that allows the government, federal or state, to extend the prison time of a convicted felon based solely on the nature of the crime for which they have already been legally convicted, sentenced, and served time for.

 

[Dubyamn]

The fact is they already are convicted for something they did do. Once their sentence is up, that should be a time for reevaluation, and not just letting them back out into society. They are evaluated by psychiatric diagnostic tests and if deemed unfit for reentry into society, they are made to stay longer. If anything that's the whole idea behind corrections isn't it? Rehabilitation? I don't see how this violates the constitution as these people have already been proven guilty and are not eligible for due process.

As far as I'm concerned these people can't be placed under the same standards are "do the crime, do the time, and leave". That's part of the problem with corrections. I'm more than happy with my tax dollars going into keeping child molesters in prison.

So we declare them sane and rational enough to prosecute and jail them for a set amount of time but then declare them too crazy to release? The system doesn;t work like that. The legal system works with hard rules that nobody is allowed to violate for any reason, Police can't use evidence gathered in a way that violates civil liberties, Lawyers are not allowed to admit witnesses that they know will give perjured testimony, Judges aren't allowed to overturn not guilty verdicts and the state is not allowed to keep somebody imprisoned past their sentence.

If you want sex offenders locked up longer support tougher minimum sentences not the overturning of one of the legal pillars of our system.

 

[Chibibar]

Chaz: I mean in terms of the the Law. If they want to change the sentencing rules, that is one thing, but once the person did the time per the law, then they are suppose to let go. If the commit the crime again, the give harsher sentence. You can't just jail them longer AFTER they serve time cause "They might do it again"

That is scenario I was pointing out.

I was thinking of changing to new sentencing rules. 3 strikes you are out (popular in many states) so 1st offense 20 years, 2nd offense 40 years and 3rd offense life.

Once we set the precedent to prolong the jail sentence AFTER they served their time that is just bad.

 

[Dave]

These people were convicted and DID THEIR TIME! The law said that because of their crimes they should get X years. They did. The courts can't just go back and say, "Pyche! We changed our mind!" Well, I guess they can now. But only for these few. And maybe those guys. And him. There's one in the spotlight; he don't look right to me! Get HIM up against a wall!

Your argument doesn't hold any water, Chaz. If they made spitting on the sidewalk a jailable offense that would be excessive but it would be the legal way to do it. Everyone would be subjected to the same laws and punishments. Your suggestion and the case in point are not the same thing and you know it.

 

[Chazwozel]

Alright I agree with Dave under those terms.

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 PM ----------

These people were convicted and DID THEIR TIME! The law said that because of their crimes they should get X years. They did. The courts can't just go back and say, "Pyche! We changed our mind!" Well, I guess they can now. But only for these few. And maybe those guys. And him. There's one in the spotlight; he don't look right to me! Get HIM up against a wall!

Your argument doesn't hold any water, Chaz. If they made spitting on the sidewalk a jailable offense that would be excessive but it would be the legal way to do it. Everyone would be subjected to the same laws and punishments. Your suggestion and the case in point are not the same thing and you know it.

I do agree with a medical board determining if an inmate (such as a sexual predator) is ready for release though.

 

[Dave]

Because psychiatrists are 100% accurate, right? So we're going to limit people's Constitutional freedoms because a shrink thinks he gave the wrong answer on an inkblot test?

 

[Dubyamn]

I do agree with a medical board determining if an inmate (such as a sexual predator) is ready for release though.

If it's part of a parole hearing situation I'm fine with that but if his sentence was to not exceed 15 years of incarceration then it is a clear violation of his rights to put him under an extra 5 years of "protective custody" or whatever label they put on the additional years of incarceration.

 

[Dave]

This ruling means they can hold them INDEFINITELY! So...forever.

 

[Chibibar]

I thought the psych evaluation (before this ruling) was to get people on PAROLE or EARLY release for good behavior BEFORE their sentence is up.

This ruling changes that. It allow extending their sentence after doing their time.

 

[bhamv3]

I agree that this sounds awfully scary. Probably better to increase the original minimum sentences. If child rapists are sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, then there would not be much of an outcry when they really do spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

 

[sixpackshaker]

If these are to be civil commitments the Gov't needs to remove these individuals from prison and put them in high security (or what ever security is needed) hospitals. Leaving them in prison should be considered unconstitutional. Right now it seems that the court is looking at the crimes and not the constitution.

 

[Chibibar]

I agree that this sounds awfully scary. Probably better to increase the original minimum sentences. If child rapists are sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, then there would not be much of an outcry when they really do spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

That I wouldn't mind.

Note: I am NO WAY supporting the idea of Child rapist (we are talking about adult hurting kids. not 19 year old dating a 17 year old which happen to fall under the same law but that is the different story) being free, but I believe this is the wrong way of doing it. I believe to increase the minimum sentence across the board and lock them up for life when they are being sentence in court or something similar. You can't just "tack" on extra sentence just cause a group of people think you are not safe. That is just bad news written all over it.

 

[Necronic]

If someone is considered mentally sound enough to stand trial (instead of being put into a mental facility) then the state has already made its claim as to the mental state of the men. You don't get to change that when it becomes convenient for you. To be honest they probably are mentally ill, and they probably should have gone to a mental hospital to begin with, but they didn't.

If you want harsher penalties for sex offenders, then increase the sentences. Its that fucking easy. But this, this is wrong, seriously wrong. There's a reason why the term Double Jeapordy is well known (and its not just because of Alex Trebec and his sexy mustache).

It reminds me of that other fucked up law they came out with about sex offenders (in Ohio I think?) The rule was that even if someone was acquited of all charges in a sex offense crime, they STILL went onto a database that people could search. WTF is that?

Our legal system needs to pull its head out of its ass when it comes to sex offenders. There seems to be a complete lack of perspective when it comes to them. They are bad, no doubt, but not nearly as bad as murderers. Hell you could argue that drug dealers are worse (it depends on how many turkeys they hand out though). For some reason we look at murderers and drug dealers and we say "they are a product of a bad environment" or some other apologist attitude, which we simply can't do with sex offenders so we say "they are evil", and I think that's what allows us to think its ok to subvert the justice system in America to deal with them.