@Vitor, you mean the broader issue of due process rights and double jeopardy rights etc? Perhaps, but that’s for the SCOTUS to decide at a later date. Until then, this law stands.
EDIT: Ah, but it looks like it’s time for Red Dead Redemption.
Enjoy having the guns are on your side because it is only a temporary situation that will be short lived. As soon as all of the guns are in the free market your side will be too poor to maintain guns.
No one can ever argue with bloom. If there were a headline saying “united states government exterminates venezualan population for oil” bloom would be like “SWEET! Oil for mez!”
We can say, but bloom, you’re killing thousands and thousands of innocent people to get what you want! And he’ll be all like “well I have guns and you don’t and they don’t so dakka dakka dakka”
But I agree, why post bloom? If you’re just going to restate the obvious: They have guns. They can do it. They are doing something I subjective like. Yay. No one realized that they can do whatever they want cus they have the guns.
Bloom, we now know guns allow people to do stuff. Please bring something new to the conversation.
I am not arguing with bloom. I am working towards a free market and putting bloom out of business. Bloom can LOL now. I will LOL later.
I’ll bring something new when I need something new to get what I want.
I think it’s time to stop trying to engage an amoral, fatalist state worshipper. It is quite apparent that no meaningful discussion can occur. It’s akin to arguing with a 3 year old. There is no thought behind any statements. I wish this forum had an ignore function.
I haven’t spent much time on these forums, but I think it’s fair to say this thread made me say “WTF?” Let me summarize my observations in this post with a short fictional conversation between two completely fictional characters named, coincidentally, Broom and Others:
Broom: “It is illegal to jaywalk.” (obvious)
Others: “You’re right, it is illegal to jaywalk. We are well aware that the government will punish you for this activity, if observed. However, we are higher functioning beings who wish to philosophically discuss jaywalking, and whether or not governments ought to prevent you from jaywalking.”
Broom: “Jaywalking is illegal, the government says so.”
Others: “We aren’t arguing the facts, we are arguing a theoretical position. We don’t think governments should stop you from jaywalking.”
Broom: “Don’t you see, governments will stop you from jaywalking. It’s the law, so it must be the best, most just, thing for society to do.”
Others: “We don’t believe that just because government currently prohibits something that the activity is wrong, per se.”
Broom: “But it’s illegal, so it’s wrong.”
Others: (give up)
In our story, the completely fabricated person Broom continues to argue one point to which no one objects. Then, switches his argument to fallaciously justify the governments action, simply because it already does it.
I am forced to assume that, either:
- Broom is logically or argumentatively incompetent.
- Is a troll.
False. The case is currently dismissed. The initial ruling by the district court was a dismissal, on two grounds - the Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that Congress exceeded its Article I legislative powers. Upon appeal, the Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal on this latter but did not rule on the former. SCOTUS then reversed the Fourth Circui’s decision, but again, did not rule on the former. Until the initial court’s ruling is reversed, something SCOTUS specifically did not do, the case is still dismissed.
“The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with respect to Congress’ power to enact this statute is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
At no point has the district court’s ruling (dismissal due to an unconstitutionally low burden of proof) been overturned.
Although I wasn’t going to comment in this thread again (seeing the life it has taken on), I want to clarify my own position:
While I understand the OP’s sentiment, I’m not remotely convinced that the general populace will care about the plight of a sex offender. The more likely reaction will be of the ‘I don’t care/the sicko(s) got what he(they) deserved’ variety. No one apart from some dedicated human rights activists might take up the defence of somebody tainted by a (false or true) sex offence. In other words, the OP’s outrage will probably fall on deaf ears outside of this forum…
People generally don’t have the time to thoughtfully consider the legal semantics of various crimes and will happily rely instead on the judgements cast down by whatever authority because it suits their prejudices to do so – especially in crimes that illicit strong emotional reactions, such as rape or molestation. Sex offenders are, in society’s eyes, disposable weirdos everyone can safely despise.
I do agree, however, that ‘sex offender’ has a ridiculously broad interpretation nowadays and is the easiest means to ruin somebody’s life (which is probably why it’s so prevalent).
Nothing particularly wrong with locking up sex offenders for life, if that’s what we think should happen. However, this is clear denial of due process. You cannot try, convict, and sentence someone, and then when the sentence is done, say, “Oh, we don’t think you weren’t punished enough, back you go.” Sentence them to life once and for all. Anything else reeks of ex-post-facto.
“You seem to think your moral/rational arguments carry more weight than a SCOTUS ruling. But they don’t.” - bloomj31
Incorrect. The SCOTUS ruling carries more legal force, but no more moral or rational weight. And the US has a history of ridiculous laws vis a vi sex offenses that raise the possibility of perfectly peaceful, consenting people ending up being held for ridiculous amounts of time. Consider how many 19 year old males have been subject to arrest, trial and prison for ‘assaulting’ their girlfirends who were under age at the time. Consider the number of blacks jailed for ‘raping’ white women when they did no such thing, or the number of gays who have been punished for the horrible crime of giving their partners a hummer. A law which carries the potential for abuse such as this is abhorrent to the very idea of a free society. ‘Sex offenders’ are the target now because of the horrid nature of the actual crimes and because of the ridiculously high recidivism rate among many offenders. However, what’s the rational and objective definition of whether or not someone poses enough of a danger to the state to remain confined at the state’s say so? There is none, it’s entirely at the state’s discretion. And they can now begin the process of dumbing that standard down so in a couple to a few decades US citizens will be facing civil commitments for all kinds of ridiculous reasons.
" wouldn’t call what you’re doing thinking. Indeed, your position seems to be that ideas don’t matter." - gocrew
And historically he’d be as correct as anyone else. For all practical matters he is correct: the people with the guns make the law, and have always done so historically speaking, and if you disobey they will shoot you to get compliance. Whether you or I personally think a legal system based on coersion is a good thing is beside the point that we are living in such a system.
I was about to post that, how the term “sex offender” is overly used in a very dangerous and ridiculous manner.
Just out of curiosity, what would your position be if the supreme court upheld a law saying that you specifically are to be locked up indefinitely? Obviously a law like that would be pointless and illogical, not to mention blatantly unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. But it would still be the law and they could still enforce it. Would you still think that the burden should be on you to get that ruling overturned? Would you still criticize people who criticize the ruling?
^bloom likes if it helps him, dislikes it if it hurts him. could be a law. could be murdering millions of people for a cupcake. shrug
I am forced to assume that, either:
- Broom is logically or argumentatively incompetent.
- Is a troll.
It doesn’t have to be either. Seems more like both to me.
" wouldn’t call what you’re doing thinking. Indeed, your position seems to be that ideas don’t matter." - gocrew
And historically he’d be as correct as anyone else. For all practical matters he is correct: the people with the guns make the law, and have always done so historically speaking, and if you disobey they will shoot you to get compliance. Whether you or I personally think a legal system based on coersion is a good thing is beside the point that we are living in such a system.
It’s true but does he really think we don’t realize this? Civilized people attempt to justify punishment.
I didn’t expect this thread to explode the way it did.
To me, I see it simply as government securing more power for itself. It’s appalling on that alone. To top it off, it is another avenue for abuse.One example among the thousands.
Let’s say, someone was arrested on terrorist charges, or from a riot. If the prisoner does not repent. he stays in jail forever, according to this law.
This actually happens already, I saw on Reason, some guy practicing law for a cash strapped church without a licence. He can’t get out of jail because he won’t say, “i won’t do it again”. But I believe that was a sentencing condtion, not a post sentence requirement.
From what I’ve been reading, “sex offender” is the magic word that justifies any torture. To me, it is more sickening than the sex offender’s crime. It is true, emotion clouds judgement.
Actually, libertarians such as myself have outlined a rational basis for law.
By “rational” you mean ‘palatable to American Propertarian Anarchists’? Value judgments and methods of action are subject only to internal criticism, and frankly we don’t know if stated values and actual values are the same thing. There is no such thing as an ‘irrational’ or ‘rational’ law, the law is the law; whether it is useful from your view or not depends on value judgments and not facts of the case.
Law and morality are non-contiguous, and although people may have moral theories in regards to law or legal theories as regards morality, the two are separate entities and it is as ridiculous to criticize law for being ‘irrational’ as it is to criticize generals for being ‘irrational’ because they lead armies. Leading armies is what generals do, deciding exceptions is what judges do. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to do this without prior assumption of certain systems of value.
Remember when I accused you of having no perspective?
Your unintentional self parody ceased to be amusing a long time ago. You clearly are proud of your ability to never question the status quo so I have to ask, why are you posting? We know its law. You add nothing to this conversation.
This, sadly.