Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely - Polidicks

I wonder if these people have read the 8th amendment.

[QUOTE=Splurgy;22007798]Surely by ending a human life you are as bad as those you seek to destroy?[/QUOTE] If we assume a death is a death no matter the reason, should we put all our soldiers in prison?

[quote]The process to enact this law to protect our children...[/quote] Godwin's Law is the Hitler one. I propose we call the "protect the children" one [i]Lovejoy's Law[/i] after the Simpsons' Helen Lovejoy.

[b]Some information about the two Justices who opposed this[/b] Antonia Scalia was chosen as an affirmative action pick, because Ronald Reagan wanted an Italian on the court. He doesn't want trials for people arrested in suspicion of terrorist activity (including civilians who are turned in, for cash rewards no less, and civilians where there is no evidence against them). He's tried to strike down Roe V Wade more than once, and thinks that God should be a part of all of our lives. Clarence Thomas is a Republican version of the "big government etc" that the right screams about the left being, despite being appointed by Bush. Not only does he regularly rule in favor of the police in cases of unlawful search and seizure, he believes that US citizens can be deemed "enemy combatants" and be held indefinitely without charge and without their rights of habeas corpus. He thinks 8-9 years is perfectly okay to wait, in custody, for your trial to begin. He also believes that schools have the right to strip search students. Thomas is big on free speech, however, and has gone as far as knocking out a Virginia law banning cross burning. He has also fought against disproportionate fines. He's come further to the center in terms of gay rights in recent years, and believes a lot in state's rights in terms of commerce. I like Justice Thomas more than I like Justic Scalia, who is and has always been a shameless prick who at one point flaunted the fact that he was an affirmative action pick.

[QUOTE=Egevened;22006602]because its emotional bawww[/QUOTE] Wow, did you really just imply that anyone who gets sad about rape is a cry baby? Wow

[QUOTE=JDK721;22007083]death penalty costs more than life in prison brohound[/QUOTE] One bullet cost five to twenty five cents. One man to fire that bullet is only one hundred dollars. I see no issue. If that doesn't work you can always bury them in the Sonoran Desert up too their neck ,and pour honey on their head ,and just leave them there for animals,bugs,and the sun.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;22016283]One bullet cost five to twenty five cents. One man to fire that bullet is only one hundred dollars. [/QUOTE] it's called appeals.. just shooting them after the trial would mean innocents are much more likely to be executed. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;22016283]I see no issue. If that doesn't work you can always bury them in the Sonoran Desert up too their neck ,and pour honey on their head ,and just leave them there for animals,bugs,and the sun.[/QUOTE] glad to know that you're 12 and have a fetish for violence.

[QUOTE=Splurgy;22007798]Surely by ending a human life you are as bad as those you seek to destroy?[/QUOTE] You know, each time I see this sort of comment, it makes me wonder whether there is a need for such a moral "high ground" and a sense of tacked-on guilt with executing a criminal. While I'm against the death penalty, this comment always bugs the hell out of me philosophically. But, on-topic, the law is a bit vague. However, appeals are still in force.

[QUOTE=Flitchaye;22016637]You know, each time I see this sort of comment, it makes me wonder whether there is a need for such a moral "high ground" and a sense of tacked-on guilt with executing a criminal. While I'm against the death penalty, this comment always bugs the hell out of me philosophically.[/QUOTE] The need for it only exists to make the people sending others to death feel better about themselves. It doesn't need to exist, people just want it to.

May as well just execute them if you're gonna treat them as criminals forever.

[QUOTE=Flitchaye;22016637]You know, each time I see this sort of comment, it makes me wonder whether there is a need for such a moral "high ground" and a sense of tacked-on guilt with executing a criminal. While I'm against the death penalty, this comment always bugs the hell out of me philosophically. But, on-topic, the law is a bit vague. However, appeals are still in force.[/QUOTE] It's like I was saying. If a murderer and an executioner are both equally as wrong because one's motive is irrelevant, then what about soldiers or people who kill in self defense?

Holy shit

How is it, by any stretch of the imagination, constitutional to lock people away indefinitely without trial or sentence? I don't get it. I may not have as good of an understanding of the constitution as the members of the Supreme Court, but then again, maybe I do. As far as I know, this is complete bullshit and the constitution does not support it no matter how you stretch it.

Rape is not even on the same level as murder. Murder is a billion times worse in my opinion, torture is more around the same level.

This isn't justice at all. You can't detain someone indefinitely on the threat of future actions. God it's Minority Report coming to life.

[QUOTE=J Paul;22023342]How is it, by any stretch of the imagination, constitutional to lock people away indefinitely without trial or sentence? I don't get it. I may not have as good of an understanding of the constitution as the members of the Supreme Court, but then again, maybe I do. As far as I know, this is complete bullshit and the constitution does not support it no matter how you stretch it.[/QUOTE] Except they have had trial, and sentencing. This is for people who have proven that, upon release, they will just go and do it again.

[QUOTE=Omali;22025673]Except they have had trial, and sentencing. This is for people who have proven that, upon release, they will just go and do it again.[/QUOTE] No, you're mistaken. When you're held under civil commitment, it is without trial or conviction of any further crime beyond the one for which you have already served sentence. You're right that they received trial and sentence for their original crime, but once they serve their sentence, they are no longer being held for that charge. You see, the problem here is that they can choose to hold someone based on "clear and convincing" evidence, not evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". The article mentions a man named Graydon Comstock who was convicted of receiving child pornography and received a three year sentence. He served that sentence in full. Before this conviction, he had served a separate sentence for engaging in lewd acts with a minor. Okay, so he has a history. Two separate sentences, both involving some sort of pedophilia. Regardless of what he may or may not do in the future, he served both sentences. He should be allowed to leave prison. However, under this law, he has been held in federal custody for three years without trial or conviction of any further crime. If you break a law, you should be arrested for it. However, you should not be confined for what you could potentially do or think about doing in the future. There is no way you can justify that. He has been convicted of no further crime and has served all sentences given to him and therefore he should be free. Do I want him to get out of prison and rape some kids? No. And since I can't predict the future, and neither can anyone else, I don't think we have the right to assume he will. I don't think it's right to hold him for a crime he hasn't committed yet, because to consider the possibility that he might commit the crime in the future, you must also consider the perfectly valid possibility that he won't. They are both valid possibilities, and nobody can say for sure which will be the actual outcome. If they let him go, he may very well end up right back in prison. Let's wait until he actually does something wrong to put him back in prison, though. It's only fair.

So much for rehabilitation.

[QUOTE=Omali;22025673]Except they have had trial, and sentencing. This is for people who have proven that, upon release, they will just go and do it again.[/QUOTE] How can you prove that they're gonna do it again?

[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] we should just kill everyone, then nobody will be wasting money cuase we'll all be dead

[QUOTE=thisispain;22035881]we should just kill everyone, then nobody will be wasting money cuase we'll all be dead[/QUOTE] u first :cawg:

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22007646] No, not when executed in a week. Lethal Injection itself costs only $86, depending on which cocktail. [B]A bullet costs even less. [/B] [URL]http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm[/URL][/QUOTE] Unfuckingconstitutional. Ever heard of the right to a trial? Yeah, you kinda need those to maintain a free state. [editline]08:35PM[/editline] Also, it's more expensive because of lawyers, possible lawsuits, ect.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;22035867]How can you prove that they're gonna do it again?[/QUOTE] An overwhelming majority of people convicted of sexual assault and rape end up being repeat offenders. I would much rather pedophiles (I mean real pedophiles, not dumbshit Joe who sexxed up his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 18 and then dumped her, so she claimed rape) and serial rapists (very important factor. Repeat offenders.) get the death penalty, as I agree with the idea that they cannot be rehabilitated or "fixed", but if locking them up indefinitely is cheaper then so be it.