Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

strollingbones

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
87,267
Reaction score
21,576
Points
2,190
Location
chicken farm
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?
 

Sheldon

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
5,213
Reaction score
1,431
Points
48
Looks like SCOTUS invoked the Necessary and Proper clause.

I'm against this. The courts, through a jury or a deal, set the sentence. This seems like a slippery slope towards arbitrary incarceration that could marginalize our legal process.

I haven't read the opinions yet, so maybe there's something there to change my mind. But I doubt it. This smells like bullshit.
 

SCSO19

Rookie
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Possibly just start serving out life for capital sexual offenses, that would ensure that the ones that are dangerous stay in. Granted our jails would become over populated rapidly, but then again maybe we should bring back the death penalty in the states that prohibited it. And perhaps speed up the process and not wait 10 years to execute someone
 

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
Looks like SCOTUS invoked the Necessary and Proper clause.

I'm against this. The courts, through a jury or a deal, set the sentence. This seems like a slippery slope towards arbitrary incarceration that could marginalize our legal process.

I haven't read the opinions yet, so maybe there's something there to change my mind. But I doubt it. This smells like bullshit.
It IS bullshit. All that has to be mentioned these days is "sexual predator" or "child molestor" or whatever, and the public goes nuts. Doesn't matter - string 'em up and hang 'em high. No retstraints whatsoever.

Of course child molestors and sexual preditors should be punished. But let's remain sane about it. Another example of this - Megan's Law.

Get a grip on yourself, society.
 

xsited1

Agent P
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
17,746
Reaction score
5,777
Points
198
Location
Little Rock, AR
This thread reminds me of something that happened a few years ago. In a small town in Arkansas, a registered child molester moved into an apartment complex after getting out of prison. The apartment building had a large Hispanic population living there at the time, and as most people know, family is very important to Hispanics and they are very protective. Anyway, the "registered child molester" started taking an interest in a few of the young kids at the complex. The parents found out what he had done in his past and one day the guy was found dead in the parking lot from a gunshot wound. The police took a few statements, an ambulance carried away the body and that was that. Nobody was arrested and nobody asked any questions after that. Case closed.
 

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,830
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
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.
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,002
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
We civilly commented a man here.
His name is Kevin Coe aka The Southhill Rapist. He raped women for a few years while they were out running, and he also never took responsiblity for it. His mother also took out a hit on the judge and PA.
He should never be released out into society.
I was also almost say on a jury that would have decided to civilly commit a man. He raped small girls, and I agreed 100% when they sentenced him to life at the facility we had here in Washington.
 

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,830
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
Keeping people in prison for what they MIGHT do is a slippery slope that none of us should want to go down.
perhaps, but my feeling is if you've already got the axe murdering, baby raping sonofabitch behind bars, and a jury listens to evidence and decides that it's not worth the risk to let him out, then keep him locked up.
 

Dr.House

Lives on in syndication!
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
14,800
Reaction score
3,764
Points
48
Location
Princeton/Plainsboro
Keeping people in prison for what they MIGHT do is a slippery slope that none of us should want to go down.
perhaps, but my feeling is if you've already got the axe murdering, baby raping sonofabitch behind bars, and a jury listens to evidence and decides that it's not worth the risk to let him out, then keep him locked up.
Agreed...

If the evidence presented is enough to convince a jury of peers that the person would still be a risk to the general poulation then keep him locked up...

Not every sexual deviant locked up is automatically cured of his deviancy when his sentence is up...

If the guy is still whacking off to the Babies-R-Us catalog then it's a pretty strong bet he's not yet ready to rejoin society...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
I don't like either alternative.

Sentences should be longer, infinitely longer if necessary. I have no problem with capital punishment in these cases. But keeping someone in jail forever just on the off chance of what they might do is a threat to civil liberty.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
210,217
Reaction score
36,839
Points
2,190
Why does it only apply to those who are "sexually dangerous"??

- Why not someone prone to murder?
- Gang leaders and mafia leaders?
- Someone with violent anger issues?

Aren't they more dangerous than sexual predators?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,035
Reaction score
10,311
Points
2,040
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.
Creating laws that add the conditions of possible longer term confinement seem to be constitutional. This case seems to deal with cases that happened earlier under the older laws.

I can see where this could be considered ex post facto. Again once a law is on the books that gives discretion for continued incarceration most constituitional issues evaporate.
 

Bill O'Olberman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
818
Reaction score
125
Points
28
Location
Virginia
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?).
 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,336
Reaction score
15,786
Points
2,180
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.
 

Bill O'Olberman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
818
Reaction score
125
Points
28
Location
Virginia
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.
Nor do I. But we have to ask ourselves is this really a law that we want Congress to make and do you think Congress even has the authority to make it? (as per SCOTUS they do). And where do we draw a line for incarcerating someone longer than their imposed sentence? Personally, I think people who get DUIs get of easy, are bound to repeat their behavior, and are a great threat to society. But I dont think we should deny them liberty outside of their sentence.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top