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.
Yeah, but they could have used this opportunity to overturn Kansas v. Hendricks, and did not do so.
We are only really certain that someone is guilty if they confess....
Not even then, sadly. Actually, if you look into the files of the Innocence Project you'll find that a great many confessions were coerced from innocent suspects.
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)
Yeah, I totally hope we get more justices who believe it's constitutional to execute the innocent and that the First Amendment's freedom of religion only applies to monotheists. Not to mention that the interests of the candidates in a disputed presidential election outweigh the interests of the electorate in selecting the candidate they voted for. Yeah, let's hope for more of that.
A judge's record is bigger than any single case; we'd be wise to keep that in mind.
You've seen Terminator 2? Where the doctor is talking with Sarah Connor? It's not entirely unlike that at all.
Well, except for the part where the two cyborgs show up and duel it out. That part was totally made up. I'm hoping. Please tell me that doesn't happen at your prison?
Dangerous? Maybe. The problem is that no elected official wants to be the one standing in front of the camera justifying why some guy with a known history of raping and killing little girls (or boys) was let out of jail and given the opportunity to do it again.
You know, you're right. Possession of child pornography totally is the same as raping and killing little girls. I can't believe I didn't realize it before! Thank you for bringing this menace before my eyes before I allowed myself to be lulled into a false sense of security that might put my children at risk.
Good question. I'd say this will make most horny 18 year olds think twice about their choices.
Yeah, because if there's one thing a horny 18-year-old who hasn't already been dissuaded by the risk of pregnancy and STDs thinks about in the moment of passion, it's the law.
Canada, the UK and Denmark all have dangerous offender laws that allow indefinite confinement. None of them has anything like the prison population the US does, or locks up 18 year olds forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than they are (I don't believe that's even mildly illegal in any of the three).
Yeah, and none of those countries is run by knee-jerk right-wingers who think voting based on "moral values" means making sure gays can't "ruin marriage" while allowing torture to go unchecked, and who just assume any law, judge or prosecutor that is "tough on crime" deters crime even despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
But once you make that distinction, you're disagreeing with the guy you said "You're actually right" to and re-agreeing with your original post. (Your original post being the saner of the two, IMHO)
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?
And my idiot detector just went off the scale. He was talking about the difference between rape and statutory rape which by definition is a non-rape crime made up by the government and designated to be rape. NOT about a person's ability to defend themselves, or their age.
and yes, for the lurking/. hivemind pedantic self proclaimed clerisy types, i know i didnt us any proper capitalization and hardly any correct punctuation. go fuck yourselves.
also, if you found this post interesting look up a book called 'the man who mistook his wife for a hat' by oliver sacks.
But I only have one self to fuck!
Also, An Anthropologist on Mars is totally the better book.
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.
I think the goal is to achieve a middle-ground compromise between most American citizens' opinion, not to achieve a middle-ground compromise between most politics professors' opinions.
How about we achieve policies that actually work? Would that be too much to ask?
Because we should all be just happy that we have a president who has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, supports a supreme court nominee vowed against true freedom of speech and supports unsustainable programs. Right?
Gee, round up people who disagree with you and put them into re-education camps. Somehow, I think this has been tried before. It didn't work then either.
LK
Actually, it kinda did. It was an awful thing to do, but succeeded in keeping both Stalin and Mao in power for decades, and giving them closer to absolute authority within their respective countries. I don't advocate it because it's wrong, but it did work.
Slashdot Mirror
They could call it the Quantum Bit Error Rate Test, or Q-BERT for short.
Once we come up with a way to justify replacing a hyphen with an asterisk in an acronym, we'll be all set. Hmmm...
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.
Yeah, but they could have used this opportunity to overturn Kansas v. Hendricks, and did not do so.
We are only really certain that someone is guilty if they confess....
Not even then, sadly. Actually, if you look into the files of the Innocence Project you'll find that a great many confessions were coerced from innocent suspects.
> Then you'd better hope we get more justices like the dissenters... Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented in the case.
This is one of those few occasions where Justice Thomas was in the minority and I agreed with him.
You know what they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
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)
Yeah, I totally hope we get more justices who believe it's constitutional to execute the innocent and that the First Amendment's freedom of religion only applies to monotheists. Not to mention that the interests of the candidates in a disputed presidential election outweigh the interests of the electorate in selecting the candidate they voted for. Yeah, let's hope for more of that.
A judge's record is bigger than any single case; we'd be wise to keep that in mind.
You've seen Terminator 2? Where the doctor is talking with Sarah Connor? It's not entirely unlike that at all.
Well, except for the part where the two cyborgs show up and duel it out. That part was totally made up. I'm hoping. Please tell me that doesn't happen at your prison?
What country do you live in? I'm not familiar with any that actually properly recognizes human rights.
It would help the discussion if you would define "properly". Or at least give us something to go on.
Dangerous? Maybe. The problem is that no elected official wants to be the one standing in front of the camera justifying why some guy with a known history of raping and killing little girls (or boys) was let out of jail and given the opportunity to do it again.
You know, you're right. Possession of child pornography totally is the same as raping and killing little girls. I can't believe I didn't realize it before! Thank you for bringing this menace before my eyes before I allowed myself to be lulled into a false sense of security that might put my children at risk.
Good question. I'd say this will make most horny 18 year olds think twice about their choices.
Yeah, because if there's one thing a horny 18-year-old who hasn't already been dissuaded by the risk of pregnancy and STDs thinks about in the moment of passion, it's the law.
Canada, the UK and Denmark all have dangerous offender laws that allow indefinite confinement. None of them has anything like the prison population the US does, or locks up 18 year olds forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than they are (I don't believe that's even mildly illegal in any of the three).
Yeah, and none of those countries is run by knee-jerk right-wingers who think voting based on "moral values" means making sure gays can't "ruin marriage" while allowing torture to go unchecked, and who just assume any law, judge or prosecutor that is "tough on crime" deters crime even despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
By definition Pedophilia means under 14, the middle range above 14 would be Ephebophilia, which is the "lolita" type.
Clearly you haven't read the book. She was 12.
I agree. I should have said 'violent rapists'.
But once you make that distinction, you're disagreeing with the guy you said "You're actually right" to and re-agreeing with your original post. (Your original post being the saner of the two, IMHO)
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?
And my idiot detector just went off the scale. He was talking about the difference between rape and statutory rape which by definition is a non-rape crime made up by the government and designated to be rape. NOT about a person's ability to defend themselves, or their age.
>
and yes, for the lurking /. hivemind pedantic self proclaimed clerisy types, i know i didnt us any proper capitalization and hardly any correct punctuation. go fuck yourselves.
also, if you found this post interesting look up a book called 'the man who mistook his wife for a hat' by oliver sacks.
But I only have one self to fuck!
Also, An Anthropologist on Mars is totally the better book.
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.
You forgot Communist and Communist sympathizer.
Actually it is even more limited than that - they have to be mentally ill as well as "sexually dangerous".
Another obvious issue with this ruling is that "Sexually Dangerous" just sounds like a Prince song.
So clearly it wouldn't be safe to let Prince out of prison.
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.
Good luck with that in a democracy.
I think the goal is to achieve a middle-ground compromise between most American citizens' opinion, not to achieve a middle-ground compromise between most politics professors' opinions.
How about we achieve policies that actually work? Would that be too much to ask?
No.
You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to your facts.
Clearly you're not familiar with the time Thomas Jefferson said, "Every man is entitled to his own sets of facts!"
Also, Ben Franklin once wrote that "Facts are like assholes...everybody's got one, and most of them stink!"
or the whole Obama fear.
Because we should all be just happy that we have a president who has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, supports a supreme court nominee vowed against true freedom of speech and supports unsustainable programs. Right?
I'm pretty sure he said Obama, not Bush.
I think you overestimate the average Texan's ability to count.
Not to mention to add and multiply.
Gee, round up people who disagree with you and put them into re-education camps. Somehow, I think this has been tried before. It didn't work then either.
LK
Actually, it kinda did. It was an awful thing to do, but succeeded in keeping both Stalin and Mao in power for decades, and giving them closer to absolute authority within their respective countries. I don't advocate it because it's wrong, but it did work.
People get good exercise with a good exercise DVD and they're just sitting in front of the TV;
I've been watching aerobics for months now, and I still haven't lost a gram of fat.
Yeah, most of what you get rid of watching aerobics is probably protein and sugar...
Seriously now... Do you think I am trying to trick you with reversed phycology?
Yes, yes I do. I think this conversation can be summed up like so:
Donut[AFK]: RIPOSTE
Donut[AFK]: ADDON RIPOSTE
Eurakarte: COUNTER-RIPOSTE
Donut[AFK]: COUNTER-COUNTER RIPOSTE
Eurakarte: NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
The TFA also includes a massive non-sequitur...
You realize you just said "The The Fucking Article," right?