http://tinyurl.com/2w5qjd7
The Supreme Court said Monday that the federal government can keep "sexually dangerous" prisoners in custody past the completion of their sentences, overruling arguments that only states hold such power.
The ruling was 7-2, with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissent.
In the sex offender case, writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress could authorize the civil commitment of these offenders under its constitutional authority to enact laws "necessary and proper" to the exercise of its specific powers.
etc.
As usual, Scalia and Thomas are right even though they are obviously on the liberal side of this issue.
The argument that the federal government is given authority to civilly commit sex offenders by some clause in Article I Sec 8 of the Constitution is intellectual gymnastics at its worst.
Later, I have to read Scalia's dissent. I'm sure it will be fun. They generally are.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraEssentially, the theory is that sexual predators are equivalent to whose who are criminally insane. They can be held, not as punishment, but as a civil measure to protect society.
What's the point of determining a sentence duration if it can be arbitrarily extended? A dangerous slippery slope, this.
Okay... that's BS.
Real answer: It's politicians who can score cheap political points by showing that they're tough on law and order at the expense of pariahs who have no political voice.
Originally posted by sh76Yes, it's basically institutionalized populism. A worrying sign that the SC agreed with this. If sex offenders are too dangerous to be released into society, then there should be a life sentence for sexual offenses. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to offer male sex offenders a reduced sentence if they get castrated.
Essentially, the theory is that sexual predators are equivalent to whose who are criminally insane. They can be held, not as punishment, but as a civil measure to protect society.
Okay... that's BS.
Real answer: It's politicians who can score cheap political points by showing that they're tough on law and order at the expense of pariahs who have no political voice.
i don't think the contingent that's keeping the execution-to-murder ratio at around 2 pct is just tossing sex offenders over the wall.
think how safe we'd be, otherwise!
the job of govenment is to protect its citizens. those who opt out have given up their right to that protection. if not, why have prisons at all? just let them roam free, like lions on the serengeti!
Originally posted by zeeblebotActually, I think that's exactly what's happening.
i don't think the contingent that's keeping the execution-to-murder ratio at around 2 pct is just tossing sex offenders over the wall.
Liberals and civil libertarians love to argue against the death penalty. Nobody wants to be on record defending sexual predators.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathey already do that.
Yes, it's basically institutionalized populism. A worrying sign that the SC agreed with this. If sex offenders are too dangerous to be released into society, then there should be a life sentence for sexual offenses. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to offer male sex offenders a reduced sentence if they get castrated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration
Originally posted by zeeblebotHopefully society will evolve beyond lobotomies and castration as "treatments".
they already do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration
Oh, yes, I forgot. It's voluntary...you just have to spend more years in jail. And since you refused "voluntary" castration I guess you aren't really penitent enough for probation, are you? Have you really learned your lesson? Maybe you should accept castration now and we'll give you early freedom. Do ex-thieves without hands steal as often?
Originally posted by sh76Baloney. The ACLU has been fighting these civil commitment laws for years.
Actually, I think that's exactly what's happening.
Liberals and civil libertarians love to argue against the death penalty. Nobody wants to be on record defending sexual predators.
This is typical Thomas: ""The enumerated powers that justify a criminal defendant's arrest or conviction cannot justify his subsequent civil detention."
This, of course, makes no sense. Personally, I think these types of laws are violative of Natural Rights no matter who enacts that, but to say that the federal and state governments can enact laws making behavior of this type serious criminal offenses, but that the states, but not the feds, can then go further and order post-sentence civil commitment is absurd.