If you do a crime and the time you are free to go. Not so fast, sex offenders!
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
- Status
No, but the government can deem you a threat to yourself and others, and lock you away.
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.
C
Chibibar
only if it will win the case
not really, but they can be evaluate at the time and even re-evaluate during trial for their sanity.
Note: while this is directed toward sex offenders, I feel that this may grow into other areas. What if a person was arrested DUI? service 5 years in jail, but his psych eval said he might drink and drive again so lets keep him another 5 years and see.
What if is assault and battery? what is it? 10 years? or was it aggravated assault, but this person's eval said this person still has many anger issue, lets keep this person another 10 year just in case.
That is what I fear it might happen in the future. It is just bad precedent. I know some of you might say "Oh Chibi! you are just exaggerating" but hey, it is the law, just like the other law about health care, now state are running with it to add "do not cover abortions" some states will take advantage of this system and run with it.
---------- Post added at 01:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------
Question: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100517/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_juvenile_sentences
Here is a weird one. Ok they are talking sentencing kids for non murder crime for life BUT sex offenders get less time? (vs this article)
That is mess up.
I'm all for harsher penalties for sexual predators, but by choosing inmates to be held indefinitely despite what they were legally sentenced to, that's a gross violation of their rights - yes, even felons have rights. Saying "Well, you've done your time, but we're just not going to let you go," is wrong and should be illegal.
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]
What I said still holds merit. The Congress enacted a law to permit the Civil Commitment of sex offenders. But to hold them in general population of prison is not the same as having them in a mental health facility. They are effectively holding them in prison past their sentence. There should be a visible difference in confinement in prison and commitment to a mental institution.
Expanding sentencing past what the Judge and Jury passed, should be considered unconstitutional. The Necessary and Proper Clause, is tenuous at best. It is leading us down the wrong road.
I
Iaculus
I 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?
Seriously, guys, who does?
Apart from Icarus, I mean.
C
Chazwozel
I'm lost.
I think Tim was saying that Iaculus should have stopped his confession of young love before his wings melted...
W
wana10
all the hollywood socialites who came out to support polanski apparently
C
Chazwozel
but but but she was very mature for her age; she came from a broken home...
but but but she was very mature for her age; she came from a broken home...[/QUOTE]
You guys just don't understand! Don't judge him!
That had to be the best, worst thing that ever happened on these boards.
I seem to remember a line from some guy named Ben...something about how you shouldn't trade bits of freedom for temporary safety...
In all seriousness, however, this is a clear-cut, black-and-white violation. You don't get to pass ex post facto laws to punish a group--ANY group--of current 'political undesirables' past their current sentence. You don't get to say, "Oh, they're dangerous, so it's okay if we jail them permanently." This country, and the Constitution that binds it, expressly forbids this type of horseshit because it sets a horrific precedent.
Fear will always be exploited by people to restrict American rights and ideals--we've seen it as far back as the Alien and Sedition Acts, we continue to see it in Guantanamo Bay and its ilk. If this continues to stand, I have no doubt that it will be used as precedent in some future case against other 'undesirables'. I abhor what they've done, but this is WRONG.
In all seriousness, however, this is a clear-cut, black-and-white violation. You don't get to pass ex post facto laws to punish a group--ANY group--of current 'political undesirables' past their current sentence. You don't get to say, "Oh, they're dangerous, so it's okay if we jail them permanently." This country, and the Constitution that binds it, expressly forbids this type of horseshit because it sets a horrific precedent.
Fear will always be exploited by people to restrict American rights and ideals--we've seen it as far back as the Alien and Sedition Acts, we continue to see it in Guantanamo Bay and its ilk. If this continues to stand, I have no doubt that it will be used as precedent in some future case against other 'undesirables'. I abhor what they've done, but this is WRONG.
- Status