Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

[GHook93]

While I think its a due process violation because you are denying these people liberty after they have served the punishment they were sentenced and such a law is truly outside the scope of Congress' power, I will not lose any sleep over it.

I'm FULLY aware of this! It doesn't seem constitutional. However, glup I don't give a shit. Fuck child molesters! They are cancers on society and deserve to be dealt with, with extreme hardship and prejudice. I know liberals will compare them to plight of other people (like the Jews in Nazi Germany), but that would be an eroneous and disingenious comparison. Child molesters make their own beds, they commit a crime of extreme inhumanity. They don't deserve any sympathy, understand or even a second chance!

I hope Republicans realize that Scalia and Thomas are the dissenters who argue that Congress doesnt have the authority to act in this capacity. Really if you agree with this decision you are in favor of broad and expansive congressional power(healthcare falls in the realm of congressional power?).

That connection is not rational. Your presenting an erroneous slidery slope.

 

[George Costanza]

Why does it only apply to those who are "sexually dangerous"??

- Someone with violent anger issues?

Aren't they more dangerous than sexual predators?

Careful, there RW - there are quite a few folks who regularly post on this very board, who might be in for the rest of their lives . . .

 

[tommywho70x]

this would set a dangerous precedent punishing people for crimes they did not yet commit just because somebody thinks they might.

child molesters were probably chosen to test the waters because of the support that would be sure to rise in favor of locking up child molesters.

what happens when a law such as that is applied to drunk drivers or marijuana users? someday there will be more people in prison than out.

 

[rightwinger]

Why does it only apply to those who are "sexually dangerous"??

- Someone with violent anger issues?

Aren't they more dangerous than sexual predators?

Careful, there RW - there are quite a few folks who regularly post on this very board, who might be in for the rest of their lives . . .

It was only a suggestion...

Maybe we can get the Supreme Court to expand the scope

 

[strollingbones]

excuse the fuck outta me...ghook...my thread wasnt good enough?

 

[strollingbones]

i wonder if women offenders will be imprisoned longer? or even convicted...

 

[Liability]

I tend to agree with Del on this.

Even so, I have some qualms.

I am not convinced this SCOTUS ruling is valid Constitutional analysis.

It's reasonable and pragmatic, perhaps.

But it does strain our system when a person is punished (sentenced) for a crime as per the bounds of the law but then can be held for longer than that legal maximum.

I believe it has to get fine tuned.

In the interim, once a fucker has shown a proclivity for molesting or raping little kids, for example, it is axiomatic that he will never be cured. There is no known cure for pedophilia. Segregating such shit from society is a desirable course -- in principle. I certainly don't want that shit being free to mingle in places where our children play or hang out ....

But HOW we get to that segregation matters just the same.

 

[Liability]

STill rummaging around for the SCOTUS decision.

In the interim, I did think the argument of "General" Elena Kagen (now the President's nominee for an Associate Justice spot) was pretty articulate.

Here -- for anyone interested -- is where to read the transcript of her oral argument this January before the SCOTUS: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1224.pdf

 

[del]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court says federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" after their prison terms are complete.

The high court on Monday reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered "sexually dangerous."

The challenge was brought by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor.

Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison


how do you feel about this? basically they are serving more time than sentenced to.

i am just not sure how i feel about this. safety of children or extended terms?

we've had this on a state level for years. there is a jury trial every time an extension is sought. i don't have a problem with it.

just to be clear, i'm commenting on mass state law- i don't know enought about the case in the OP to have an opinion specific to it.

 

[Modbert]

The bigger question is whether a new jury (if to get a extension on the sentence) is just going to be a less sympathetic parole board. After all, I think it would be pretty difficult to find twelve people who would be willing to let someone go out of jail after they been convicted of anything related to children and pornography and have been suspected of continuing so after getting out of prison.

 

[George Costanza]

While I think its a due process violation because you are denying these people liberty after they have served the punishment they were sentenced and such a law is truly outside the scope of Congress' power, I will not lose any sleep over it.

I hope Republicans realize that Scalia and Thomas are the dissenters who argue that Congress doesnt have the authority to act in this capacity. Really if you agree with this decision you are in favor of broad and expansive congressional power(healthcare falls in the realm of congressional power?).

I would not be applauding if not for the fact that so many judges have let these sex offenders off with little or no punishment after they have destroyed a childs life. I have no sympathy or mercy for them.

You need to be aware that, in California at least and I think in most states these days, the sentences for sex crimes are DRACONIAN. The typical sentencing scheme provides for the filing of a separate count for each, distinct act during the comminssion of the crime. Touch here - Count 1. Touch there - Count 2, etc. etc. Further, sentencing on the various counts must run consecutively and (I think) there is no requirement that consequtive sentences not exceed 1/3 the midterm, i.e., they can be full term.

It is not at all uncommon for a defendant to end up with over 200 years in state prison (I have seen a sentence in excess of 400 years) over ONE incident involving sex with a minor.

"Namby pamby judges who are afraid to impose real sentences" is a constant cry on this board. In reality, it is just the opposite.

 

[AquaAthena]

Sex Offenders Can Stay Locked Away After Terms End
Monday, 17 May 2010 12:36 PM

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" indefinitely after their prison terms are complete.

The high court' 7-2 judgment reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of those considered "sexually dangerous."

Much more: Supreme Court: Sex Offenders Can Stay Locked Away After Terms End

 

[Liability]

While I think its a due process violation because you are denying these people liberty after they have served the punishment they were sentenced and such a law is truly outside the scope of Congress' power, I will not lose any sleep over it.

I hope Republicans realize that Scalia and Thomas are the dissenters who argue that Congress doesnt have the authority to act in this capacity. Really if you agree with this decision you are in favor of broad and expansive congressional power(healthcare falls in the realm of congressional power?).

I would not be applauding if not for the fact that so many judges have let these sex offenders off with little or no punishment after they have destroyed a childs life. I have no sympathy or mercy for them.

You need to be aware that, in California at least and I think in most states these days, the sentences for sex crimes are DRACONIAN. The typical sentencing scheme provides for the filing of a separate count for each, distinct act during the comminssion of the crime. Touch here - Count 1. Touch there - Count 2, etc. etc. Further, sentencing on the various counts must run consecutively and (I think) there is no requirement that consequtive sentences not exceed 1/3 the midterm, i.e., they can be full term.

It is not at all uncommon for a defendant to end up with over 200 years in state prison (I have seen a sentence in excess of 400 years) over ONE incident involving sex with a minor.

"Namby pamby judges who are afraid to impose real sentences" is a constant cry on this board. In reality, it is just the opposite.

Oh come on.

Judges alone are not the problem, but the system itself does reward plea bargaining. It requires plea bargaining. And given plea bargaining, the pedophiles tend to get fairly lenient sentences until and unless they go to trial and get their asses kicked.

Say what you will about drug crimes, etc. We could fairly debate appropriate sentencing as to some crimes, not agree and yet not be unreasonable on either side! But when it comes to pedophiles, since there is no cure, the best protection society has is very zealous prosecution, strict plea bargain limitations and mandatory sentencing. "Throw away the key," in their case, is not necessarily a bad idea.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So then we are no longer a "nation of laws?"

 

[AquaAthena]

So then we are no longer a "nation of laws?"

Currently, in more ways than one, a nation of new laws...

 

[candiedkisses85]

Why not chemical castration?

 

[Modbert]

Merged. - Modbert

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So then we are no longer a "nation of laws?"

Currently, in more ways than one, a nation of new laws...

Well this is an immoral law.

 

[GHook93]

Keeping people in prison for what they MIGHT do is a slippery slope that none of us should want to go down.

But for criminal behavior they previously did! Not to mention there are true helpless victims in child molestation. Very different that robbery or vandalism!

 

[George Costanza]

I would not be applauding if not for the fact that so many judges have let these sex offenders off with little or no punishment after they have destroyed a childs life. I have no sympathy or mercy for them.

You need to be aware that, in California at least and I think in most states these days, the sentences for sex crimes are DRACONIAN. The typical sentencing scheme provides for the filing of a separate count for each, distinct act during the comminssion of the crime. Touch here - Count 1. Touch there - Count 2, etc. etc. Further, sentencing on the various counts must run consecutively and (I think) there is no requirement that consequtive sentences not exceed 1/3 the midterm, i.e., they can be full term.

It is not at all uncommon for a defendant to end up with over 200 years in state prison (I have seen a sentence in excess of 400 years) over ONE incident involving sex with a minor.

"Namby pamby judges who are afraid to impose real sentences" is a constant cry on this board. In reality, it is just the opposite.

Oh come on.

Judges alone are not the problem, but the system itself does reward plea bargaining. It requires plea bargaining. And given plea bargaining, the pedophiles tend to get fairly lenient sentences until and unless they go to trial and get their asses kicked.

Say what you will about drug crimes, etc. We could fairly debate appropriate sentencing as to some crimes, not agree and yet not be unreasonable on either side! But when it comes to pedophiles, since there is no cure, the best protection society has is very zealous prosecution, strict plea bargain limitations and mandatory sentencing. "Throw away the key," in their case, is not necessarily a bad idea.

I don't totally disagree with you here - and I must admit, that I do not (and never have) handle the more serious sex crimes. I had one about ten years ago. This jewel had been doing his niece from age 13 to age 17 when they finally caught him. This was really a kind of innocuous case, as child molestations go - yet he was offered 16 years, turned it down, went to trial and got 40.

I don't call that being soft on a pedophile.

I hate pedophiles as much as anyone, but I am not quite ready to enter into a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mode. You had it right - it's figuring out how to properly handle the life-long segregation part of it that's the issue.