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.
No, I can't think of any ways this could be abused.
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.
My biggest problem is this: What other crimes can criminals commit deeming them too dangerous for society? What's the point of a fixed length sentence at all for individuals who are likely to be dangerous after release? What about murderers and/or serial rapists who show no remorse or signs of rehabilitation?
What about repeat domestic abusers?
Drunk drivers(have you seen recidivism rates?)?
What about repeat moving violators?
It's a slippery slope.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
This is how liberty dies. First they claim that terrorists don't have rights, then they claim sex offenders don't have rights. Before you know it, nobody will have any rights.
FTA: "The fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime — sex-related or otherwise — does not provide the Government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person," Justice Thomas wrote.
Makes sense to me. If the crime deserves a longer sentence, then impose a longer sentence. But let's not cherry pick after the fact.
The real problem is the sentencing guidelines. A true child rapist should go away for life in prison. Then this wouldn't be an issue. I am not talking about statutory rapists, I mean the ones who really prey on children.
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.
The other important point here is that today they limited the application of life without parole, saying it was cruel and unusual punishment to apply to a juvenile who had not committed a murder. This bring America closer in line with with the human rights standards of the Western World.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Here's the supremes' decision:
From working on the Bilski case, I've ended up reading a dozen US Supreme Court decisions, and I've found them surprisingly readable. There are times when you just have to accept that something has a meaning that you don't know, but even with these gaps, the remaining text is usually coherent.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
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
Justices decide if the Constitution prohibits a law, not if the law is a good idea.
IANACL (I Am Not A Constitutional Lawyer), but I don't understand how this law would necessarily be unconstitutional -- these people are being given access to due process, and are essentially being held on the same legal basis that the government uses to commit the dangerously mentally ill (which, really, is what these folks are).
This isn't to debate the merits of the law itself, of course, but blaming the Democratic-leaning justices for ruling on the law's constitutionality (esp, in a 7-2 decision) is pretty weak.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
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.
I take it you don't like the decision?
Then you'd better hope we get more justices like the dissenters... Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented in the case... (FTFA)
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The real problem is the sentencing guidelines. A true child rapist should go away for life in prison. Then this wouldn't be an issue. I am not talking about statutory rapists, I mean the ones who really prey on children.
Woah, my hypocritical bullshit detector just flashed defcon 5...
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.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The summary is incorrect. The majority opinion was written by Breyer, not Kennedy. Kennedy is one of the two (not three like it says) who concurred but thought the majority opinion was too broad. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18offenders.html
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
The decision today doesn't have anything to do with the the fundamental ability of the government to indefinitely detain sex offenders after they've served their sentence. The court decided that back in 1997 in Kansas v. Hendricks. Todays decision was just about whether the federal government has such power. This is a federalism case, not an individual rights case.
When you string together 2 inches at a time, eventually you will reach 200 miles. People may be over-reacting to this ruling but if you consider the bull shit going on elsewhere in our legal system and in government people start getting pissed off.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
We're all perverts, it's just that most of us don't commit unlawful or harmful acts. Remember, any sexual act not performed for the sole purpose of procreation is a perversion, meaning that anybody who uses birth control is a pervert!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Isn't there also a risk of false positives when labeling people as "dangerous" to justify indefinite incarceration? I agree that we shouldn't execute people because one mistake is too many, but we really don't have much of a system for exonerating people once they are convicted either. We are only really certain that someone is guilty if they confess, but using that as a criteria risks punishing the most honest offenders more harshly than the sneaky bastards.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Isn't that what the Age of consent is for? What you need to strive is to lower this age in the States.
By definition Pedophilia means under 14, the middle range above 14 would be Ephebophilia, which is the "lolita" type.
I assume this is a taboo issue there.
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
Before you wish for more Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, you may wish to read this article, also in the NYTimes, about another recent court decision where the two were again part of the dissent. In this case, they dissented from the majority's ruling that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a teenager who hasn't killed (or been party to a killing) is cruel and unusual punishment.
Scalia's and Thomas' objection to civil commitment has nothing to do with opposing excessive sentences and everything to do with opposing an administration they personally do not like (If you want to play the 'limiting Federal powers' card, please check up on some of their terrorism-related rulings during the Bush administration first).
They can put you away for good for being "sexually dangerous" but not for being a mortal danger to the lives of others?
I am extremely conservative. I have two immediate family members who have been raped and several very close friends. I do not believe the US has any current punishment which is fitting for horrible destruction that rape causes. And yet...
I am incredibly enraged that the Supreme Court would rule that it is Constitutional to violate the 5th Amendment Due Process clause because of the children. If you want to give them counseling, then put a prescribed amount in the sentence. The courts have ruled that "life" sentences violate due process, and yet holding them indefinitely for counseling doesn't?
Emotion should, from time to time, temper the application of law, but never the application of rights ~ shellsterdude.
Right... so if you're going to rape someone, you might as well kill them afterward... fewer witnesses that way.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's NOT limited.
The U.S. government believes it can imprison, kidnap, torture, or kill anyone, anywhere. The only necessary condition is that the government apply a label to that person. Sample labels: Enemy combatant. Possible terrorist. Sexually dangerous. Other labels that may be secret. Sometimes no proof is considered necessary.
The U.S. government believes it can spy on anyone, anywhere, and spends more taxpayer money on spying than any government anywhere.
The U.S. government believes it can lie to taxpayers.
Some departments of the U.S. government believe the government can kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason, or no reason at all, or no reason a normal citizen would consider a real reason.
The U.S. government has killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein, by a factor of more than 10. The U.S. government called Saddam Hussein cruel.
The U.S. government has a 6 times higher percentage of its citizens in prison than any country anywhere.
The U.S. government has more debt than any country anywhere, in the entire history of the world.
The U.S. government has invaded or bombed more than 24 countries since the end of the 2nd world war.
The U.S. government believes it can interfere with the governments of other countries. For example, in 1953 the U.S. government removed democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh.
The government has engaged in violent activity toward another country each year, except one, for more than the last 100 years. Apparently all of that violence was to increase private profit.
I'm not sure it's possible to praise justices Scalia and Thomas on Slashdot without be marked as a Troll, but I'm about to.
There is a lesson in this to be learned by all of those who rail against justices like Scalia and Thomas when they vote contrary to your personal beliefs about social issues.
This is at the core of the difference between tyranny and a constitutional republic.
As Edward Kennedy recently put it, are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men? Today we see again that we are merely a nation of men, ruled by the arbitrary will of an unelected few, rather than by a constitution designed to protect at all costs the liberty of the few from the will of the many.
If you don't like the constitution, we have process in place to change it for exactly that reason. We have many times before. That's the agreement you and I have as members of a civilized, free society. If you think you can walk all over the peoples' document when it becomes an obstacle to your social agenda: FUCK YOU.
If sex offenders are mentally ill, which caused their behavior, and are still ill that way when their sentence is up, then they shouldn't be released. They probably shouldn't be in jail, either. They should be in a psychiatric jail.
The law in the US regarding sickness vs criminality is so screwed up that there's little chance people's rights will be protected when their illness creates either harm or risk to other people.
--
make install -not war
I believe I recall reading that the OSS did this during WWII to people who were a security risk and whom they felt couldn't be trusted not to blab. I can't find a source for this though so it may be fiction or rumour.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
When I agree with Scalia and Thomas and no one else on a Supreme Court decision. You cannot change the rules of incarceration. There is a sentence. If you want to hold prisoners longer make the sentence longer. You could even make the possibility of additional comfinement, but you can't make the sentence a court gave them any longer without a new trial.
Well I guess you can now. Who the fuck cares about the Constitution? No one. No one who matters anyway.
If you're a juvenile. That's an important distinction.
There are ways to get life without parole if you are an adult and you do enough bad things.
Regarding the other case, I have to side with the SCOTUS minority. If you want to keep child molesters locked away for ever, then pass laws that require longer sentences, rather than sentencing them to ten years then holding them forever.
And for god's sake, if you skip a safety regulation and 29 coal miners die, be prepared to be charged with manslaughter, at the very least. The day a CEO of a coal company who causes 29 death does the same amount of time as a 19 year-old caught with a pound of reefer, then we can pretend we have a country based on the rule of law and not the rule of money.
So big deal, the United States Supreme Court really showed those horrible child molesters. That's an easy call. Do something hard and apply the same set of rules to the rich and powerful who break laws.
You are welcome on my lawn.
TOA was a little misleading. I originally had the impression that the guy got 37 months for receiving kiddie porn, and that the issue was whether he was likely to look at kiddie porn again. Uh-oh!... We'd better lock up those picture lookers for LIFE! (Wouldn't it be cheaper to just blind them?)
Actually, the issue is: Once the Government has a dangerous (and dangerous is pretty well-defined) criminal incarcerated, and they know that he/she is not rehabilitated or mentally stable, is the Government entitled to protect society by keeping him locked up until either a State or institution takes custody and care? Yeah, there are some issues about incarcerating someone for something he might do in the future, but the general public is too ignorant to evaluate that properly. So, the solution is to preserve the status quo until you can shift the responsibility/blame onto someone else. After all, the perp is already locked up; what difference does a few more years make?
Considering that a huge number of ex-cons are recidivists, it might be used as an argument to keep everybody locked up forever. I noticed that in the case quoted, it was the State that certified him as "dangerous". Given the demagoguery and hysteria of some of our Texas prosecutors, I'm not sure I trust them to define "dangerous" in any meaningful way.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Why would you let someone go before they've rehabilitated? That's stupid.
And why would you keep them in prison after they've rehabilitated? That's also stupid.
So then why sentence a criminal for any number of years at all, when you don't know yet how long it will take? Pulling numbers out of thin air just doesn't sound like a very good idea. Am I way off base here?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
As do I. Never before in memory (well, except for Guantanamo) has SCOTUS claimed that the government has the authority to incarcerate someone indefinitely without trial. I think we are seeing almost immediate (and extremely unfortunate and dangerous) results of the precedent that was set in the Guantanamo situation.
... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." -- James Madison
Not to mention the question of whether the Federal government has any authority to do that in a non-military context. Murder is embodied in state law. As is rape. Where does the Federal government (and SCOTUS) think it gets the authority to do this? There is nothing in the Constitution that would bestow this kind of power on them. And that includes the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses.
All in all, I think it is pretty damned clear that the majority made yet another BAD decision, much like some of the other bad decisions it has made in the last 10-15 years. I think it's time for new blood in the courts. And I don't mean Kagan; she pushed this law when the court last reviewed it. She would be my last choice for Supreme.
--
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.
Nothing in this decision or in the law says that molesters will be imprisoned forever without trial. Nothing at all.
If someone is that much of a danger sexually, then why haven't we castrated them? Would that not go a long way in ensuring that they do not commit such a crime again?
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
which says that juveniles cannot get life sentences for nonhomicides.
Unless they looked at kiddie porn, then they get a 3 year sentence that they serve for the rest of their life.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
Bullshit. Read the article again, and study up on some law.
First, the Federal government has no authority to do this. Whether it says they will be imprisoned forever or not. It's not in their jurisdiction.
Second, "clear and convincing evidence" is FAR lower than the normal standard for incarceration, which is "beyond reasonable doubt". So yeah, it WOULD give the Federal government the ability to incarcerate someone forever, without a proper trial. At least, any kind of "trial" that would be accepted in any other situation.
Third, in the very poster-child case mentioned in the article, the government would have it apply to a "receiver" of child pornography. Note here an important distinction: you may think the person is weird and deranged, but study after study have shown no link between mere "receivers" of child pornography, and actual real-life crimes. The man was not convicted for any crime other than receiving child pornography. He molested no children. In fact, there is ample evidence to show that rather than inciting crime, pornography is cathartic, and that people who might otherwise commit crimes will otherwise take out their obsessions or aggressions on the pornography, rather than real people.
To recap: most "receivers" of child pornography are NOT people who are dangerous to society or children. No matter what the government would have you believe.
Do not misunderstand; I am NOT saying that people who create child pornography are doing mankind a favor. What I am saying is that psychologically, most people who "get turned on" by such stuff would rather deal with it on their own, rather than commit acts they know are completely unacceptable to society.
Further, technically YOU are probably a "reciever" of child pornography, in your emails or internet popups. Whether you want to be or not. That stuff gets stored in your system logs and browser cache, where they can be found later by the authorities. Sure, that doesn't mean you are keeping a collection specifically of child pornography... but it DOES mean that you are in violation of the same laws. Hmmm... maybe we should lock YOU up for 10 years, then change our minds and lock you up for life! What do you think? Is that fair?
No matter how much you think this is "for the children", the fact is that the Fourth Circuit judged properly, and SCOTUS did not. Which just adds to the number of exceedingly bad decisions they have made in the last decade and a half. And even if it were not a bad decision, the Federal government does not have the authority to make it.
This is an ex post facto law. No way around it. Making such a law is outright forbidden - explicitly - by the constitution to both the feds (congress) and the states. The fact that it's aimed at some sex offender is just used to get the foot in the door -- if you remove "sex offender" and put "murderer" or "litterbug" in there, the effect of the law is the same: To increase punishment after the fact.
SCOTUS, out of control, still. Or again. However you want to put it. There's no way to rein in these traitors to their oaths either -- the system as designed is outright broken. The constitution has zero legal teeth.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
They're all awful people.
I've seen you on /. a few times now. Your posts very rarely make any sense, and this one was especially incoherent.
Posts with citations that contradict your assertions already exist in this thread, especially this guy who posted before the poster you responded to.
I guess what I'm saying is, learn how to argue better if you're going to continue doing it.
Yes, you are correct. The person is in jail, with no rights, and the legislative branch and judicial branches are both corrupt, bowing to public wants. The problem here is that most of the public are idiots who know jack shit. Opinions are like assholes - every one has one. Public opinion is the largest asshole of all. Judge a person, sentence a person, then let them go at the *end* of the judged sentence. Don't just arbitrarily change things to suit your needs. These judges need to be shot. A real society has no need of judges that make warped decisions like this that are clearly supportive of abuses of power.
I know I'm an anarchist, and I can't wait for the day when society falls apart.
Dave
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
"And even then there was little fear of that: the Northern government established a fort, with clear intent to threaten the South militarily, before the South did anything but talk. "
You should really get your history straight.
For one:
Fort Sumter was built after the War of 1812, not to antagonize the South, and the battle erupted over resupplying the fort. To top that off, the South fired first...... And to set the record straight, the MAIN cause of the Civil War might have been state's rights, but slavery was still an issue no matter what you want to say. If it was a non-issue like you claim, why would the election of an abolitionist set the South off?
Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back.
And for your results, you forget what this did to state's rights. This is where a lot of people today argue that in order to prevent secession in the future, the federal government took too much power away from the states...balance of power was inherent in the Constitution...
And no matter what you want to claim, the Supreme Court has always been made to trump EVERY other court even state's decisions. Of course they can say something is constitutional. That is what they do every-time they rule that something is not un-constitutional. Double negative there... I know its confusing...
The Court does not reach or decide any claim that the statute or its application denies equal protection, procedural or substantive due process, or any other constitutional rights. Respondents are free to pursue those claims on remand, and any others they have preserved.
SCOTUS let this one go because the defendant didn't make your arguments! I can tell nobody on Slashdot read the decision because nobody is arguing any of the questions that the case was actually decided on.
Here's the decision. Go read it, at least the first few pages. This is not a due process case. It's a states' rights case:
All the court said is that this falls within the federal government's powers, and doesn't violate the Tenth Amendment (which reserves some rights to the states). It didn't say it was okay on due process grounds. In fact, a district court did rule that the law was unconstitutional on due process grounds, and an appeals court upheld that (citations omitted):
In short, the law has been struck down. The district court struck it down on two grounds. The government appealed both to the appeals court. The appeals court upheld the district court on one of the grounds without addressing the second one. The Supreme Court overruled the lower courts on that ground (legislative powers). The law is still struck down for violating due process, pending further appeals. This case has nothing to do with due process.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin