Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely - Polidicks

[quote]The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to keep some sex offenders behind bars indefinitely after they have served their sentences if officials determine those inmates may prove "sexually dangerous" in the future. "The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority. At issue was the constitutionality of federal "civil commitment" for sex offenders who are nearing the end of their confinement or who are considered too mentally incompetent to stand trial. The main plaintiff in the case, Graydon Comstock, was certified as dangerous six days before his 37-month federal prison term for processing child pornography was to end. Comstock and the others filing suit remain confined at Butner Federal Correctional Complex near Raleigh, North Carolina. Three other inmates who filed suit served prison terms of three to eight years for offenses ranging from child pornography to sexual abuse of a minor. Another was charged with child sex abuse but was declared mentally incompetent to face trial. All were set to be released nearly three years ago, but government appeals have blocked their freedom. The government says about 83 people are being held under the civil commitment program. Corrections officials and prosecutors determined the men remained a risk for further sexually deviant behavior if freed. The inmates' attorneys maintain the continued imprisonment violates their constitutional right of due process and argue Congress overstepped its power by allowing inmates to be held for certain crimes that normally would fall under the jurisdiction of state courts. The law in question is the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which includes a provision allowing indefinite confinement of sex offenders. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled lawmakers had overstepped their authority by passing it, prompting the current high court appeal. "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," Breyer wrote. Breyer equated the federal civil commitment law to Congress' long-standing authority to provide mental health care to prisoners in its custody, if they might prove dangerous, "whether sexually or otherwise." In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the federal government overstepped its bounds. "Congress' power, however, is fixed by the Constitution," Thomas wrote. "It does not expand merely to suit the states' policy preferences, or to allow state officials to avoid difficult choices regarding the allocation of state funds." He was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. The case represented a victory for the federal government and the woman who argued the case on its behalf, Solicitor General Elena Kagan. President Obama nominated Kagan last week to serve on the Supreme Court. A key lawmaker behind the Adam Walsh act applauded the ruling. "The court's holding today is a victory on behalf of the American people," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The process to enact this law to protect our children from those who would do them harm was difficult. I am heartened to see an overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court uphold this important child protection law." The justices in April 2009 had blocked the imminent release of dozens of sex offenders who had served their federal sentences after the Obama administration claimed many of them remain "sexually dangerous." Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the men be kept in custody while the case worked its way to the high court. Most violent sex offenses are handled at the state level, and at least 20 states run programs in which sexual predators are held indefinitely or until they are no longer considered dangerous. The federal government's civil commitment program is relatively new. The Adam Walsh act was named after the son of John Walsh, host of TV's "America's Most Wanted."Adam Walsh was kidnapped and murdered by a suspected child molester in 1981. The act also increased punishments for certain federal crimes against children and created a national registry for sex offenders. Those aspects of the bill were not being challenged in this case.[/quote] [B]Source:[/B] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html?hpt=T2[/url]

Does this count statutory rape?

I can see where they're coming from, but that's just too exploitable. I think the best thing would be to put them on parole. Being able to indefinitely lock people up is the same thing that they do at Gitmo and I don't think that's what we want to be doing now.

Why do they always give rapists the harsher sentences and not murderers

[QUOTE=flippy645;22006579]Why do they always give rapists the harsher sentences and not murderers[/QUOTE] because its emotional bawww

[QUOTE=gnome;22006547]Does this count statutory rape?[/QUOTE] I doubt it.. they aren't a threat.

As long as they give inmates some kind of psychological help to combat things, so they don't just sit in a cell then get released one day and start raping minors, this seems quite fair. At least this will grant those who are in charge more time to help those who need it. :sax:

What's funny is in Colorado there's a law that lets sex offenders pick and choose their [i]therapy[/i] for their condition.

Human rights groups are going to come down on this like a brick. Not to say they're right, they should realise people have the right not to be fucking raped.

This is disappointing. These jails do jack shit to rehabilitate anyone, so by this fucking logic we should just lock up anyone even possibly likely to re-offend permanently. [editline]02:53PM[/editline] [QUOTE=:smug:;22006769]Human rights groups are going to come down on this like a brick. Not to say they're right, they should realise people have the right not to be fucking raped.[/QUOTE] Giving someone life for some emotional trauma is not justice. I'm not saying that emotional trauma isn't a valid reason to lock someone up, but locking them up for life is just wrong.

As much as I like this, it's not Constitutional. Needs to be reversed.

That's a little extreme, I think.

what the fuck

Instead of wasting millions a year keeping them in, we should spend the 116 dollars executing them. They have already faced trial, and the evidence proves them guilty.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22007037]Instead of wasting millions a year keeping them in, we should spend the 116 dollars executing them. They have already faced trial, and the evidence proves them guilty.[/QUOTE] you should work for government you are very smart

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22007037]Instead of wasting millions a year keeping them in, we should spend the 116 dollars executing them. They have already faced trial, and the evidence proves them guilty.[/QUOTE] death penalty costs more than life in prison brohound

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22007037]Instead of wasting millions a year keeping them in, we should spend the 116 dollars executing them. They have already faced trial, and the evidence proves them guilty.[/QUOTE] The justice system is not always right. Sometimes, the evidence can lead to an innocent being jailed. In this case, you would be executing a person for no wrong-doing. There would be many flaws in such a system. (Not like our current system does not have its flaws as well)

[QUOTE=x-quake;22007144]The justice system is not always right. Sometimes, the evidence can lead to an innocent being jailed. In this case, you would be executing a person for no wrong-doing. There would be many flaws in such a system. (Not like our current system does not have its flaws as well)[/QUOTE] You are correct about these unfortunate circumstance, and while you can never exterminate this issue; the authorities can do their best to ensure the correct person is charged. [QUOTE=JDK721;22007083]death penalty costs more than life in prison brohound[/QUOTE] No, not when executed in a week. Lethal Injection itself costs only $86, depending on which cocktail. A bullet costs even less. [URL]http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm[/URL]

Once again, you are very smart, and should work for government. fuck the haters

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22007646]You are correct about these unfortunate circumstance, and while you can never exterminate this issue; the authorities can do their best to ensure the correct person is charged. No, not when executed in a week. Lethal Injection itself costs only $86, depending on which cocktail. A bullet costs even less. [URL]http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm[/URL][/QUOTE] Surely by ending a human life you are as bad as those you seek to destroy?

[QUOTE=Splurgy;22007798]Surely by ending a human life you are as bad as those you seek to destroy?[/QUOTE] Permanently depriving someone of freedom to go about their lives and keeping them conscious for the entire thing is much worse than death.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22007646]You are correct about these unfortunate circumstance, and while you can never exterminate this issue; the authorities can do their best to ensure the correct person is charged.[/QUOTE] Really? Have you heard of the Innocence Project? They've cleared a considerable number of people who were wrongfully convicted.

[QUOTE=Riutet;22008016]Permanently depriving someone of freedom to go about their lives and keeping them conscious for the entire thing is much worse than death.[/QUOTE] Really? If I had to choose, I'd much rather stay alive in prison than die.

[QUOTE=MercZ;22008039]Really? Have you heard of the Innocence Project? They've cleared a considerable number of people who were wrongfully convicted.[/QUOTE] I googled them after reading your post; They seem like a damn amazing group. But hopefully they don't exonerate the wrong people, but reading their cases, they seem to know completely what they are doing.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22007646]No, not when executed in a week. Lethal Injection itself costs only $86, depending on which cocktail. A bullet costs even less. [URL]http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm[/URL][/QUOTE] lol executing a person within a week.. this isn't China

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22008360]I googled them after reading your post; They seem like a damn amazing group. But hopefully they don't exonerate the wrong people, but reading their cases, they seem to know completely what they are doing.[/QUOTE] And if you got your week long stay before execution, every single one of those innocents would be dead. The death penalty needs to stop the second one innocent person is executed; it should have ended long ago. Do you trust the government to be your personal god, and hold sway over life and death?

[QUOTE=JDK721;22006495][B]Source:[/B] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html?hpt=T2[/url][/QUOTE] Actually, I'm surprised that this is happening now. Canada had such a law years ago. It's the one case I know of where Canada was tougher on crime than the USA.

[QUOTE=The fox;22006739]As long as they give inmates some kind of psychological help to combat things, so they don't just sit in a cell then get released one day and start raping minors, this seems quite fair. At least this will grant those who are in charge more time to help those who need it. :sax:[/QUOTE] Except that we know that our jails don't do anything to reform people, besides maybe making them more appreciative of free buttrape.

Once they serve their sentences, release them. Doing anything else is unconstitutional.

Just when I think we're getting out of the infinite detention without trial Constitution-violating business, Bush's old buddies on the Supreme Court have to give the right wingers another election year handout.