Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Upholds Indefinite Confinement
An anonymous reader points out the news that the US Supreme Court today upheld a law that allows the federal government to keep prison inmates behind bars beyond the end of their sentences, if officials determine they may be "sexually dangerous" in the future. The case involves one Graydon Comstock, who was certified as "dangerous" six days before his 37-month federal prison term for processing child pornography was to end. The vote was 7 to 2. Three of the justices who concurred with the decision raised an objection to the broadness of the language used in the majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy.
This definition includes people who were NEVER ACCUSED OF HAVING ACTUAL SEX with anyone. And could be applied to anyone convicted of any crime at termination of sentence.
NOT good.
If it can be over applied, it almost certainly will be. As a great example look at California's "3 strikes" law. It was sold as a law that would get the worst repeat offenders gone. After all, if you've committed 3 serious crimes, it is clear jail isn't doing anything in terms of rehabilitation or deterrence, it is just time to remove you so you can't commit crimes. Sounds good... Except that it gets applied to all sorts of things. There is a guy who's in prison for life with his 3rd strike being a shoplifting charge. As such the jails there are extremely overcrowded and the federal government is having to step in and force them to release people because the conditions are so bad.
Well, that is just what happens. Also, it tends to happen even worse whenever sex is involved. Sex crimes have the ability to cause a total brain shutdown in much of the population. You say "sex offender" and people automatically think "Forcible rape of a young child." So any proposed law that is anything but the toughest possible on "sex offenders" gets outrage as a response because you aren't "Protecting the children."
So yes, such a thing can and will be over applied.
Can you provide some citations for that? It's always been my experience that it costs far, FAR more to execute someone than to imprison them for life when you take into account that the appeals process is expensive.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
There's a well-known case about a psychologist (sorry forget his name... it was back in the 60s), who deliberately acted insane to get himself committed. He wanted to see what it was really like to live in the asylum. Problem: When he decided his observations were done, and he tried to prove he was "sane" to the staff and just doing an experiment, nobody listened to him. They refused to let him out.
No government, no corporation, no person should have that kind of power. There needs to be a point where that power ends (prison term has ended), and the person is allowed to be free, rather than enslaved for life.
BTW:
The psychologist did eventually get out, but it required a lawsuit and the backing of his university; else he probably would have died there. A sane man trapped inside a flawed system.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
sounds a little like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
No, that's from drug laws. Toss out all the drug convictions and our prisons would be less than half full.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
While I understand the sentiments I would recommend that you watch "Witch Hunt" before fully supporting such a step.
36 convictions for child molestation, all overturned.
Opps, sorry, only 34 where overturned. The other 2 died in prison awaiting their retrial. The last guy was released after spending 20 years in jail for something he didn't do.
You should a child rapist be put in prison for any longer than any other sort of rapist? How is it any more acceptable to rape a 21 year old woman than it is a child? This sounds like a typical 'OMG, we must protect the children' hysteria that clouds and distorts this sort of discussion. I don't care if you rape a 3 year old girl or a 35 year old man who is a master of 14 martial arts, a persons degree of ability to defend themselves does not mitigate the crime.
Ummm, see Duke Lacrosse fiasco, and several other times when rape isn't violent and consent believed to have been given. A 3 year old girl is in no way capable of giving consent whereas a 35 year old man could and then after the fact change his mind and claim consent wasn't given. So unless you are prepared to get a signed notarized affidavit of consent prior to every sexual encounter be careful how much you wish to place all rapists in the same boat. See also viral nature of child molestation, 35 yr men who are raped rarely run around raping others. Children who are molested can become molesters as adults.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Insanity is a legal defense, not a crime
We can pass a law to fix, er, change that.
>>>most 14-year-olds are, in fact, children.
"In fact" they are not. Children are scientifically defined as the juvenile *sterile* member of a species. 14 year olds are not sterile..... they have become adults in the biological and natural sense.
Now if you want to argue a 14 year old is an inexperienced human being, I will concur with that. But I won't call him or her a child. It's simply not true.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Please do teach me the math to calculate that 10 (trial) + forever (no trial) - 10 (trial) != forever(no trial).
If someone can get condemned to 10y by a trial, and kept locked up indefinitely, that's indefinite lock-up without trial.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Notably, most of the five plaintiffs in this case were not "horrible child molesters" but rather men who had been convicted of possession ("receipt") of child pornography. There is no evidence that they have committed or will commit any violent crime. The Attorney General could just as easily use this doctrine to lock up a man who urinated against a building, if his stream crossed over state lines.
Sorry, yes. Here's the legal definition, from Calder vs. Bull:
Read #3 there. Does this law change the punishment for the crime for which the criminal was convicted? Yes, it does. Is the punishment greater than that applied at conviction? Yes, it is. Are these two changes relevant to the law annexed to the crime when committed? Yes, they are.
Also, you're talking out your ass about parole and fighting, etc. These are new violations of existing laws and they get new punishments. They are in no way increases of the sentence for the original act. But this idiocy the supreme court passed is exactly that: the time in jail is extended indefinitely because of the original crime. No new crime has been committed. That lands this clearly in ex post facto territory.
No? What are "sex offenders", then, if not a group of people? It is a classing mechanism, is it not? Can you tell if you are in the class? Yes, certainly you can. Can you tell if you're not in the class? Yes, again, easily. So you're wrong again. Must not be your day, pal.
If you aren't given the right to face your accusers and defend yourself, and your jail term is extended consequent to the fact that you committed a criminal act, which is what is happening here, then it is a due process issue. You can't just wave your hands, mutter abracadabra, and magic up a civil violation for some clown in jail, now magically "re/deeper-guilty" of being a sex offender, murderer, or litterbug. Until or unless that person commits a new crime, they have every right in the world to walk the streets. Otherwise, you're engaging in prosecuting thought crime / future crime, which is utter bullshit.
Spoken by someone whose post was almost straight-through technically wrong, point by point, that is a fabulously amusing remark. You have a nice day now. I suggest you spend it reading the constitution, and then looking up the big words.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.