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.

3 of 745 comments (clear)

  1. Scope by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reading about this today, I found that the scope of this particular decision is less scary than I initially assumed -- it's limited to prisoners who meet a standard as being "sexually dangerous", so they're not just being held without due process. Apparently this applies to about 100 prisoners nationwide.

    The trouble here is that we, as a society, have real trouble in applying common sense in our legal system. You start with an obvious good thing (keeping violent sex offenders behind bars) and it grows into something completely different -- consider the way the term "sex offender" has been distorted. Once you start allowing this sort of action, where's the protection that keeps it from growing into something else?

    Are we going to start seeing 18 year-olds locked up forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than them? It sounds silly, but we already routinely label this a "sex offense". Will taking a drunken piss in an alley set you up for decades in prison? Again, common sense says that's ridiculous but again, it can already get you labeled as a sex offender.

    Until we figure out a way to legislate in a way that applies some degree of common sense, this sort of thing just can't be allowed.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  2. Well, it's not that unusual. by exasperation · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Canadian law, and I generally consider Canada to be a free society, has the possibility of indefinite detention if someone is found to be a dangerous offender, and likely to reoffend. It's not very often used, mostly in the most grievous murder and sexual assault cases.

    Wikipedia has more information: Dangerous Offender

  3. Re:That is the real problem by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a guy who's in prison for life with his 3rd strike being a shoplifting charge.

    Furthermore, it has the effect of making life more dangerous for cops and the law-abiding. It turns people who are at risk of being busted for a third strike into caged animals. Someone who has just commited shoplifting and sees the store security coming after him is a lot more likely to shot or knife them, or anyone nearby in order to make his get away. A 2-striker who gets pulled over with a joint or even just a crack-pipe in his car is now a lot more likely to pull an OJ and try to make a break for it, endangering everybody else on the road with him.

    The path to hell is paved with good intentions and the guys driving the paver are blind lead-foots.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.