Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely
The Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to indefinitely keep some sex offenders behind bars 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.

Monday's other Supreme Court rulings:


======================

yikes, so what about murderers?

i know its kinda funny, ie getting old in GD but.......

I don't get why they just didn't give them life sentences.

I suppose the thought was that after X years they've served their debt to society for their crime, but after such time, if the state deems that they still pose a danger to society they can extend their sentence.

I think after they've served their sentence, if they're still dangerous, they should have to be moved out of jail/prison and into a mental institution. Other than that, I don't have a lot else to say on this, I guess.

i was under the impression, you get tried for a crime and you serve yor debt to society. but for the state to be able to say, we dont think 30 years in jail is enough. you do more. its not like youre up for parole where theres a chance you can get out.

Yep.

If this is constitutional, I don't see why the government couldn't do the same thing with a drug dealer, killer, thief, etc. who seems likely to go back to their life of crime after prison.

Doesn't this also raise the question of what the point of imprisonment is? If we're going to keep you locked up if you might still be dangerous, then maybe prison should be more about rehabilitation than a place where you sit until your term is up.

I'm guessing that the argument the majority made is that sex offenses are something that's innate in the mind, as opposed to the crimes you listed, which are more willfully committed. I'm not sure if I agree with that line of thought, but I can understand it. Either way, I think that these considerations should have been crafted into the sentence. It doesn't seem right to rewrite the rules after the fact.

I'm a big proponent of the notion that the point of prison is to keep dangerous people away from the rest of society. That's why I have empathy for the majority in this case, but I'm still not sure if the government executed this plan the proper way.

This is a clusterfuck, specially since it's based in deceiving and breaking the "contract" made with the prosecuted person.

Is this terribly different than a family member having someone forcibly committed?

yes, it is

in our society, once you have paid your dues, you should be debt free. if not, you are telling the govt to hold people for no other reason than you are scared of them, and thats just opening the door and oiling it, so that the govt can now deem anyone a thread.

for all the bitching about gitamo youd think youd feel the same way about this

After reading more about civil commitment, I'm starting to understand the majority's argument a lot more. It still presupposes that pedophilia is an uncontrollable urge, though, which may be a tough argument to make.

Obvious Pedobear image is obvious.
*waits for obvious Chris Hansen image that will also obvious*

I was going to say that it felt weird arguing the conservative viewpoint to your rabid liberalism.

no you werent


and this just goes to show the world and the laws cant not be argued as black and white. if the us govt can not hold terrorists in jail because they are scared of them then surely they can not hole pedos in jail after they had a legal trial and have served their sentences, just because they are scared of them.

i havent seen any (nor have i really looked for) anything that shows that there is a medical condition any more than there is a medical condition that makes you a breast, butt or legs man than there is that makes you predisposed toward kids.

so to me, just being scared someone thinks a certain way, doesnt give you the right to just lock them up. would it be fair if the world was populated by people who thought it was ok to have a relationship with people of your own age in a world that pedophilia is the norm?

I was coming at it from the position of the prisoner legally being a ward of the state and the state making the decision to commit someone for further mental treatment.

Of course, that's not exactly what's happening here, and I don't exactly feel that's right.

I was kinda testing out some arguments and seeing how they roll "off my tongue." In case I ever run for office, I want it to be formally stated that I do that a lot on RM.

I agree with you, but isn't this a 180 from your previous arguments about sex offenders, Peeps?

you ever run for office and i am emailing all the press:


http://www.theskyiscrape.com