In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued confinement of some sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.
No comment. Just getting word out. No words can describe… Constitution was just used as toilet paper.
Edit:
I can’t be bothered looking this up, but I heard on radio news that people are pushing an animal-abuse registry for offenders.
**
Didn’t know it was good enough.
This could be the beginning of a movement to use physchiatric commitment to by pass the criminal system in order to imprison people without jury trials. In a way, its surpising thats its not more common already. I guess the gullibility of juries makes it unneccesary so far.
i don tknow if the story is true or not.
vilent assaults where sex is involed should be treated as violent assaults. extending assault where non-consencsual sex takes place shoudl just be additional counts of assault
for the particulary depraved where youth or infants (where sex is inmpossible) are involved perhpas chemical treatments after a various sentences.
but again that would be a violent assault.
dirty old men or gropers or cell phone playground photographers, etc i dont see as an issue.
probably a fake story. i don tsee how a sentence can not be a sentence though.
Oh those poor sex offenders.
"In his concurrence, Justice Alito said he was concerned about both “the breadth of the court’s language” and “the ambiguity of the standard that the court applies.”
But he said the civil confinement law passed constitutional muster. “Just as it is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the apprehension of escaped federal prisoners,” he wrote, “it is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the civil commitment of dangerous federal prisoners who would otherwise escape civil commitment as a result of federal imprisonment.”
Sounds fine to me.
What system of justice uses coercion to restrict liberty after the price demanded by the due process of justice has been paid?
A system of justice that is willing to hold these people if they think they’re still a potential danger. This is the standard:
“If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by “clear and convincing” evidence — a heightened standard, but short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” — it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or a state assumes responsibility for them.”
Again, sounds fine to me, I’m glad they’re doing it, I don’t want those people back on the streets until the authorities think they’re safe.
Bloomj has a point, though.
The issue here is that when people read ‘sex offender’ it conjures up a powerful emotive response – even moreso if children are involved. People not directly involved in the cases will likely want even more punitive measures taken against those offenders (like turning them into eunuchs), or at least hold the ‘he’s getting what he deserved’ attitude.
Ever seen Watchmen? “Men go to jail, dogs get put down.”
As AndrewR points out, they’re lucky this is all they get, one can imagine far worse punishments.
What point does Bloomj have? That you can declare someone competent to stand trial, convict them, and ten years later declare incompetence with the stroke of a pen?
Blah, who cares what you think? The law is the law and I like this one. You don’t like it? Get the ruling overturned. Until you do, this is how things work.
Btw, they’re not being declared incompetent to stand trial, read the opinion before you say things that make no sense.
Here, I’ll even do the work for you, all you have to do is read a little: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1224.ZO.html
What exactly is a “sex offender”? Is it a rapist? Is it a 19 year old male who had consensual sex with a 15 year old female? Is it right to punish people indefinitely, and at great cost? What if the core is made of cheese?
Blah, who cares what you think? The law is the law and I like this one. You don’t like it? Get the ruling overturned. Until you do, this is how things work.
Might makes right? It’s an even weaker argument than legal positivism.
Certain crimes carry much more emotional weight than others and people who read those articles and will rejoice at the idea of sex offenders being permanently imprisoned or monitored. Why do you think executions and hangings were such popular events in the past? People not directly involved in the trials won’t care a whit about the semantics (why should they?) and simply give the court’s judgement the benefit of doubt as, again, the nature of the crime will determine how powerfully outsiders feel about it.
Afterall, ‘sex offender’ implies the worst sort of individual imaginable and if a child is involved then the offender will probably regard prison as a sanctuary – unless the other prisoners don’t try to lynch this individual, instead.
Yes, from a logical and purely ethical perspective it might be unfair, but overall society will merely rationalise it as ‘he got what he deserved!’. How do you change that attitude? Can it be done? Should it be done?
Who cares if it’s right or wrong? It’s the law. If you don’t like it, it doesn’t matter unless you can change it. The law isn’t about right and wrong it’s about what is and is not allowed.
Moreover, if you guys actually read the opinion, it’s clear that Congress has the power to make laws like this, it’s been established in precedent and found to be constitutional by a majority of Supreme Court judges. That’s the way the game works. You don’t think it’s right? Who cares?
Who cares if it’s right or wrong? It’s the law. If you don’t like it, it doesn’t matter unless you can change it. The law isn’t about right and wrong it’s about what is and is not allowed.
Moreover, if you guys actually read the opinion, it’s clear that Congress has the power to make laws like this, it’s been established in precedent and found to be constitutional by a majority of Supreme Court judges. That’s the way the game works. You don’t think it’s right? Who cares?
One wonders, upon reading this, what contribution this makes to the discussion. In essence, you are saying, “Shut up, the Supreme Court has spoken. Your opinion doesn’t matter.”
But then why would yours?
"We take these five considerations together. They include: (1) the breadth of the Necessary and Proper Clause, (2) the long history of federal involvement in this arena, (3) the sound reasons for the statute’s enactment in light of the Government’s custodial interest in safeguarding the public from dangers posed by those in federal custody, (4) the statute’s accommodation of state interests, and (5) the statute’s narrow scope. Taken together, these considerations lead us to conclude that the statute is a “necessary and proper” means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others. The Constitution consequently authorizes Congress to enact the statute.
We do not reach or decide any claim that the statute or its application denies equal protection of the laws, procedural or substantive due process, or any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondents are free to pursue those claims on remand, and any others they have preserved."
My opinion doesn’t matter in this discussion. In this discussion, the only opinion that matters is the Supreme Court’s. And the SCOTUS’s reasoning is provided in the opinion.
Who cares if it’s right or wrong? It’s the law. If you don’t like it, it doesn’t matter unless you can change it.
Argumentum ad baculum, how insightful bloom.
The law isn’t about right and wrong it’s about what is and is not allowed.
Actually, libertarians such as myself have outlined a rational basis for law. Considering that the last time I linked you stuff to read you recoiled at 40 pages, I am not expecting a substantive argument from you anytime soon.
Moreover, if you guys actually read the opinion, it’s clear that Congress has the power to make laws like this, it’s been established in precedent and found to be constitutional by a majority of Supreme Court judges.
Prove why I should care what Congress or the SC says. The burden of proof is always on those who intend to coerce to show that coercion is justified.
This case is a good example of the importance of getting rid of all government.
The principle of indefinite detention is not, per se, a bad one. If there is a criminal - and it doesn’t have to be a sex offender - who simply will not or cannot be made to play nicely with others, keeping them forever removed from civil society is a necessary action, it seems to me. But can we really trust the government to do it?
But this question of trust can be applied to any aspect of government. There are things the government does which need to be done, but how can we possibly trust it?
At any rate, if you’ll permit me a moment to play the let’s-fix-the-unfixable game, it would make more sense if those responsible for releasing criminals were paid for every released inmate who walked the straight and narrow and fined for all recidivism.