I'm actually really only experienced in Bird Law.Lawyers of the boards, what do you think?
It will like that movie Minority Report.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.
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.Slightly off topic rant: The Supreme Court appointments should not be for life. Those retards aren't bloody royalty.
/rant
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.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.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?
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.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.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?
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.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.
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]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?
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.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.
The lead plaintiff. Is not a violent criminal (just a fucked up perverted Human being).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.
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.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.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.
I do agree with a medical board determining if an inmate (such as a sexual predator) is ready for release though.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.
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.I do agree with a medical board determining if an inmate (such as a sexual predator) is ready for release though.
That I wouldn't mind.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.
Can you force a person to claim insanity though?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.
You are glancing at the cliff notes and claiming you read the book. I suggest you read the second link Dave posted before claiming the Supreme Court just ignored the constitution.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.
only if it will win the caseCan you force a person to claim insanity though?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.
You are glancing at the cliff notes and claiming you read the book. I suggest you read the second link Dave posted before claiming the Supreme Court just ignored the constitution.[/QUOTE]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.
all the hollywood socialites who came out to support polanski apparentlyI must say, I do find it amusing how so many posts in this thread are desperately stressing that they don't support child rapists.
Seriously, guys, who does?
Apart from Icarus, I mean.
I think Tim was saying that Iaculus should have stopped his confession of young love before his wings melted...
I think Tim was saying that Iaculus should have stopped his confession of young love before his wings melted...