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.
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.
>>>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.