Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 101

Thread: Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

  1. #61
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    as statistics show that sexual predators are very likely to re-offend, i don't have a problem limiting their freedoms. that could be part of their sentence, imo. lifetime parole would be good to start with.
    There's lots of statistics about that, some show that the recidivism rate is not significantly higher than any other crime. The point, however, is that you can't punish someone because they may recommit. Proper government intervention can only come once a crime is committed. Or if there is significant proof that a crime shall be committed. And that will have to be on the individual basis, not a broad collection of statistics. What you're trying to argue is that because of the crime, the government can punish people for crimes they have not yet committed or shown any proof that they are going to commit. For me, that doesn't sit well.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There's lots of statistics about that, some show that the recidivism rate is not significantly higher than any other crime. The point, however, is that you can't punish someone because they may recommit. Proper government intervention can only come once a crime is committed. Or if there is significant proof that a crime shall be committed. And that will have to be on the individual basis, not a broad collection of statistics. What you're trying to argue is that because of the crime, the government can punish people for crimes they have not yet committed or shown any proof that they are going to commit. For me, that doesn't sit well.
    Per the more detailed article I posted that is exactly what this is. Case by case, protecting the public from mentally ill offenders who would have serious difficulty not raping or molesting children.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058756021

  3. #63
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

    People should be put away if they are a danger to society. This is why people in prisons are kept in cells. We may say that prisons are for rehabilitation, but the real goal is protection of the public at large.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  4. #64
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There's lots of statistics about that, some show that the recidivism rate is not significantly higher than any other crime. The point, however, is that you can't punish someone because they may recommit. Proper government intervention can only come once a crime is committed. Or if there is significant proof that a crime shall be committed. And that will have to be on the individual basis, not a broad collection of statistics. What you're trying to argue is that because of the crime, the government can punish people for crimes they have not yet committed or shown any proof that they are going to commit. For me, that doesn't sit well.
    i agree that we can't keep them incarcerated beyond their sentence, but we certainly can change sentencing laws, and we can also change parole conditions.

    i really though stats showed a high rate of re-offending?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  5. #65
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Just to be clear, according to the story it is 'some sex offenders'. And the criterial would be that they are 'sexually dangerous'. Now, you can make fun of that vague term, but I trust the integrity of those doing probation reports and psych evaluations.


    Here is a more detailed explanation from another source.



    That language sounds reasonable and specific enough. -- "serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released."

    Civil confinement also sounds reasonable. This empowers authorities to better deal with recidivism among sex offenders.
    "Just to be clear, according to the story it is 'some terrorists.' And the criteria would be that they are 'dangerous to national security.' Now, you can make fun of that vague term, but I trust the integrity of those doing the national security evaluations."

    Does that still sound reasonable to you?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    as statistics show that sexual predators are very likely to re-offend, i don't have a problem limiting their freedoms. that could be part of their sentence, imo. lifetime parole would be good to start with.
    Hey, I gotta call you out on this. According to the USDOJ, sex offenders have one of the lowest reoffense rates within 3 years of release (when reoffense rates of all crimes are calculated) at 3.3%. Only murder has a lower reoffense rate. You wanna rethink what you just said?

    And to the people who say that once a sentence is served and parole is completed even a sex offender should be free.....they need to write to their congressman to obliterate the sex offender registry. No other crime, even murder, has to register like a sex offender does. They can be completely done with their sentence and parole.....meaning a free man/woman......and they have to abide by the sex offender registry restrictions. If they do not, 20 years down the road, they forget to update their employer address within 3 business days, they can be rearrested on a felony "failure to register" charge. Minimum 2 years in prison. Now keep in mind, this could have been an 18yo guy with a 17yo girl 20 years ago....they are constantly held under ever tighter restrictions......and then make the news whenever one slips up. Imagine a father not being able to go see his little girl in a school play because at the age of 18 he had sex with his 17yo gf who's now his wife of 20 years. Anyone who thinks THAT is ok is a moron, period.

    Why don't murderers have this? Bank robbers? Drug dealers?

    Not to mention the obviously illegal retroactive application of new sex offender laws. For instance, in my state they passed a law in 2007 that said all sex offenders must have "sex offender" on their drivers license. What for? Who the **** knows? But anyway, they went back.....to 1954 and made ANYONE who was convicted of an offense categorized as a sex offense get that on their license. This could have been 50 years after conviction.....that's illegal. It should be for all sex offenders convicted from that day forward, not going backwards. The case could EASILY be made by anyone affected by saying had I known I would have to have this big orange tag on my drivers license I would have pled not guilty and gone to court. But since they didn't do that, they shouldn't have laws passed years later apply to them. It's not fair.

    Also, that same morning, sex offenders who had agreed to 10 years on the registry woke up to a letter in their mailbox saying that they now had to register for 25 years or even life, many years after conviction, sentencing, etc! They pled with the knowledge they would do 10 years on the registry, and some people 9 years into registration found out they would never get off. That is wrong!!!! That is increasing the punishment for a crime after the crime was dealt with by the courts. Don't think the registry is a sentence and punishment? Decide not to register as a sex offender and see what the consequences are. If a felony charge is the consequence of not abiding by new restrictions, then those restrictions are punishment after the fact, ex post facto. It's already being challenged as unconstitutional and won in several states.

    No matter how bad you hate the phrase "sex offender" you CANNOT BYPASS THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY!

    Oh yea, and crunch, why do you say that the way sex offenders are handled in prison by other inmates is the way they deserve to be treated? I could have sworn that when a judge hands down a sentence it is to do time, not to be abused and used by the prison population. We all know that some innocent men and women sex offenders are in prison based on nothing but hearsay or word of mouth testimony by a child coerced by a mad ex-wife, ex husband etc. How badly does that innocent man or woman deserve to be treated for a crime they didn't commit? Its bad enough they're in prison for it, why is it ok for them to be beaten and raped? Please, be specific in your answer because I want to know. I have a feeling if I got together 10 men who were abused as sex offenders and knocked on your door you would change your mind quickly when you realize that you could just as well be abused right there in your own home. Sex offenders are ganged up on in prison, how would you like to be beaten by a gang of sex offenders?
    Last edited by dontworrybehappy; 06-27-10 at 12:05 AM.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

    And one other thing Crunch, there is a reason that you should NEVER condone violent behavior against any inmate, for any reason......they COULD be innocent. An innocent man was just released from prison after 17 years after DNA found him not guilty of the crime of RAPE. Just how bad did he deserve to be treated by other inmates for those 17 years? Since when are inmates the ones in charge of the sentencing? I don't think you thought past your ego when you said you were fine with how they were treated in prison. The only problem is you assume every one of them is guilty. And if ONE is innocent, then others are too. Its bad enough they'll have to serve their sentence for a crime they didn't commit, but they should not have to be beaten and raped for it too.
    Last edited by dontworrybehappy; 06-27-10 at 12:13 AM.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

    I think I would prefer if a jury trial determined if prisoners are not suitable for release to the public. I mean, if they are so dangerous, then there will be evidence right? There will either be reports of behavior while behind bars, psychiatric evaluations, and other such information.

    I don't like child molesters but this sets a dangerous precedent. The Federal government should not be deciding if someone's prison term is insufficient or not. I see why people will rally behind this decision, because we all hate sex offenders, right? Well, all that means is that the sex offenders made the ideal target for expansion of government power.

    This is NOT a good ruling.

    EDIT: You know what, I'll take this a step further. People who have not committed a crime should not be held behind bars. Likewise, if you've served your prison sentence, there shouldn't just magically be more years added on for nothing.

    No crime, no time. I don't care how dangerous they claim these people are. If you don't have proof, then piss off.
    Last edited by Orion; 06-27-10 at 12:13 AM.

  9. #69
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    I can't believe the editor let this title print.

    I would have changed "held" to "detained".

    Sex offenders just want to be held.

    I think it's a bad idea because some kids will lie and that could ruin someone's life. Your employer won't hold your job indefinitely. While this isn't the norm, it could still happen.
    Yep.

    During my time in high school, on more than one occasion a teacher was drummed out in response to accusations of improper conduct with students -- accusations that were, the accusers subsequently bragged, completely bogus.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  10. #70
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Here's my take on this because when reading it I thought of a few things right off. First, it has the words "Sex Offenders", a horrible offense that instantly grabs onto emotion and crosses political boundries. Second, was what would we be hearing if it said this instead:



    Would we still be fine with it?
    While I'm sure many people would be fine with it, I wouldn't.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •