• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

aps said:
Thomas and Scalia dissented. I gotta read this. I am happy with this outcome, and I love when I see the libs and the cons agree on a subject matter. Here's a link to the decision. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

I accidentally put the link as the title. I apologize.

THANK YOU FOR CHANGING MY TITLE!
Click to expand...
i don't agree. we don't incarcerate people for crimes they might commit. these offenders were given a specific snetence and should be required to fulfill that, and be released.

the answer is to change existing sentencing laws regarding hard core sex offenders. maybe life in prison, and if paroled require them to live in specifically built residences, with strict rules.

we don't keep murderers in prison after they've served their sentence. it's discrimination, pure and simple.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I agree with this decision and am thrilled that they have made it!



Why?

There's no therapeutic or medicinal cure for pedophilia and compulsive rape among other vicious crimes.

I fail to see how putting them in a loony bin will help at all.
Click to expand...
well, there's no cure for sociopathic murderers, either. we need to change the law or ABIDE by the law as it is.
 
digsbe said:
I would say for repeat sex offenders they should be held indefinitely. The sick thing is that so many get out of jail and return to molesting innocent children. Monsters like that deserve to be jailed for the rest of their lives. I agree with the SCOTUS decision. However, I don't think first time offenders should be held indefinitely.
Click to expand...
really? statistics show that first time offenders ARE not first time offenders, it was just the first time they were caught.

they went to prison with a specific sentence, and if they served that sentence, they can't be kept. we should change our laws, not ignore them.
 
Goof Noodle said:
A thank you would be nice. I have no problem if we execute most off the sex offenders in this country. It would be the best treatment for the "mentally ill".
Click to expand...

For a so-called libertarian that's a pretty big stick you're handing the government!

Here's my problems with such a ruling:

1) "Sex offender" and "child molester" are not the same thing. How many cases have we seen people blackmarked for life over something absurd? I remember a case where a 16 year old had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, legally. Girlfriend takes a picture of said act and sends it to him. Arrested for possession of child pornography. Or some guy gets drunk and stumbles outside naked, public indecency. Sex offender for life.

2) If we're just going to ignore sentencing, why do it in the first place? "Welp, we'll let you out when and IF we feel like it."

3) What's to stop this precedent from being expanded to robbery, smoking pot, or unlawful possession of a firearm?

Edit: And as liblady posted above, we don't imprison people for crimes they might commit.
 
Last edited:
Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

danarhea said:
You are right.

Even though my link is mainstream and not from a blog, I would have no objection to this thread being merged with the one in breaking news - blogs. Great discussion there.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I can figure out how to do it. If I break something, please don't be too mad.
 
Moderator's Warning:
YAY, I got it right. Threads merged and in BN-MSM
 
liblady said:
i don't agree. we don't incarcerate people for crimes they might commit. these offenders were given a specific snetence and should be required to fulfill that, and be released.

the answer is to change existing sentencing laws regarding hard core sex offenders. maybe life in prison, and if paroled require them to live in specifically built residences, with strict rules.

we don't keep murderers in prison after they've served their sentence. it's discrimination, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

I probably should reserve saying I agree until I read the decision itself. However, it's hard for me to find a problem when the most liberal justices find that the statute isn't unconstitutional.
 
megaprogman said:
There are a lot of mental illnesses that we have no cure for, yet we put these people in asylums (or at least we used to before the 80s). If someone is having these sorts of urges that they cannot control, they are not well. I think we should reserve jail for those who have a conscious choice over their actions and can be rehabilitated through punishment.

Also, there should be strict standards for due process on this sort of thing and it should never be a matter of the parole committee not knowing what to do with the inmate and resorting to this because of that.
Click to expand...

Sex crimes aren't 'mental illness'

These people can still function as regular people. They can work, read, educate and care for their selves.

You might not know what a mental-ward is like, but usually those with real mental illnesses pose a repeated threat to their selves and others. They're closely monitored, checked in on and medicated as is necessary. Security is far more strict and so are protocols and measures taken. Contact with the outside is more limited and far more closely monitored.

A sex offender, if taken away from the temptation, isn't going to harm someone via their weakness. They simply, like a murderer or drug user, find it extremely hard to control their impulses and what they consider "needs." So, like a murderer or drug user, should be kept away from their problem as much as possible.

Thus, they'll do fine in the regular population. Those who are truly ill and need extensive care need to be in the mental-ward.

On top of the difference between the mentally ill and those who are just compulsive those in a mental-ward cost the state more money and are more demanding (legally and otherwise) to care for.

We need to limit the number of people in the mental ward so they don't become overrun with non-threats or with people without imbalances and the ones who do need and deserve that extra care, caution and treatment can still be treated ideally.

Now, if there still is an issue with the idea of having a sex-offender in with the regular population then perhaps what's really needed is a ward *just* for sex offenders - away from those who are mentally imbalanced and away from those who committed other vile crimes. There are different levels of offense and, therefore, there are different levels of imprisonment and care - so this last suggestion, I think, might be an ok solution.
 
Last edited:
aps said:
Thomas and Scalia dissented. I gotta read this. I am happy with this outcome, and I love when I see the libs and the cons agree on a subject matter. Here's a link to the decision. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

I accidentally put the link as the title. I apologize.

THANK YOU FOR CHANGING MY TITLE!
Click to expand...

I'm happy with this decision, though I still believe the decision that banned the Death Penalty in child rape cases was wrong.

Repeat and serial offenders should not see the light of day ever. (I guess this makes me a big leftist lib)
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Sex crimes aren't 'mental illness'

These people can still function as regular people. They can work, read, educate and care for their selves.

You might not know what a mental-ward is like, but usually those with real mental illnesses pose a repeated threat to their selves and others. They're closely monitored, checked in on and medicated as is necessary. Security is far more strict and so are protocols and measures taken. Contact with the outside is more limited and far more closely monitored.

A sex offender, if taken away from the temptation, isn't going to harm someone via their weakness. They simply, like a murderer or drug user, find it extremely hard to control their impulses and what they consider "needs." So, like a murderer or drug user, should be kept away from their problem as much as possible.

Thus, they'll do fine in the regular population. Those who are truly ill and need extensive care need to be in the mental-ward.

On top of the difference between the mentally ill and those who are just compulsive those in a mental-ward cost the state more money and are more demanding (legally and otherwise) to care for.

We need to limit the number of people in the mental ward so they don't become overrun with non-threats or with people without imbalances and the ones who do need and deserve that extra care, caution and treatment can still be treated ideally.

Now, if there still is an issue with the idea of having a sex-offender in with the regular population then perhaps what's really needed is a ward *just* for sex offenders - away from those who are mentally imbalanced and away from those who committed other vile crimes. There are different levels of offense and, therefore, there are different levels of imprisonment and care - so this last suggestion, I think, might be an ok solution.
Click to expand...

You don't know how sex offenders would be treated in general population in prison? :shock:
 
aps said:
Thomas and Scalia dissented. I gotta read this. I am happy with this outcome, and I love when I see the libs and the cons agree on a subject matter. Here's a link to the decision. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

I accidentally put the link as the title. I apologize.

THANK YOU FOR CHANGING MY TITLE!
Click to expand...

So does this mean that a sex offender, who has had his day in court, has been sentenced, and has served that sentence officially delivered by the courts can then be held in prison indefinitely with no new trial or ability to defend themselves because of their crime? If so, that is unconstitutional and just about grounds for revolt. They basically just got rid of habeas corpus. If that is true, no one in their right mind could be happy about the decision.
 
I haven't read the opinion yet, but the policy itself is highly dubious. If we all agree that sex offenses are the worst things ever, then let's change our sentencing laws to reflect that. I think the argument for indefinite detention is much weaker here than in cases dealing with terrorists, as that's an exercise of the executive's Art. II powers.

Redress said:
I think I kinda disagree with this, though I have a hard time getting worked up over it, since I loathe and detest and despise sexual predators. I think it is a dangerous precedent.

I do find it interesting how this is one that does not fall along classical liberal/conservative divisions.
Click to expand...

There are actually several areas in the criminal justice context where Scalia (and often Thomas) tend to be extremely pro-defendant while most of the rest of the court tends to be pro-government. He's managed to bring a majority around to see his point of view in two of them, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing eventually happen here.

Scalia's broad reading of the Confrontation Clause was originally a minority view, but he's since gotten a majority of the court to join him in raising the bar for what the government must prove in open court. Most prominent is the case from last year where the court decided 5-4 that forensic experts couldn't just mail in their testimony, but had to actually appear and be subject to cross-examination.

On the issue of "honest services fraud," he's been arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague for years. Nobody really agreed with him at first, but after hearing three cases on the topic this year, it looks like the court is ready to invalidate the law.
 
Some more background on the case: United States v. Comstock - ScotusWiki

Here's what I think is the most relevant part of the opinion:

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.
Click to expand...

This case was entirely about whether or not Congress had the authority to pass such a law under the Necessary and Proper Clause, not whether it's okay for the government to hold people indefinitely in this situation.

The court already heard that issue in Kansas v. Hendricks. In that case, KS actually had a state law that provided for all of the procedures post-conviction. It was upheld 5-4. with the conservatives in the majority, making this opinion all the more interesting.
 
Last edited:
Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

liblady said:
i'm not torn. if they've served their term, they deserve to be free as long as they follow whatever rules are in place for them. the answer is to change the laws regarding sentencing for sexual offenders. require longer sentences, maybe life sentences, and build residences where they have to live when they are paroled, and place exceptionally strict requirements on them.

but that's NOT how the law reads now. the supreme court is wrong.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. Everyone is entitled to their day in court. They can defend themselves. If found guilty, they are sentenced. Once the sentence is up, that's the end of government force against the individual's rights. Done and done. You can't infinitely punish someone because we don't like the cut of their crime. In the end, it becomes nothing more than suspending habeas corpus; which is a horrible horrible thing to do and a power reserved, I believe, only for the President.

I know no one likes sex offenders and such and we think them horrible. But we cannot allow our emotions to overcome rational and logic thought. We have to understand the limitations to the powers government has. Today the sex offender, tomorrow the drunk driver, then the terrorist....the list can keep going. We need to tread carefully and we need to understand that free means that we acknowledge the rights of others, that we place power in the sovereignty of the individual, that government is limited in what it can do, it's power is finite. Accepting growth and expansion of government instead of the consequences of freedom is a dangerous path to walk; and one I'm not willing to go down.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You don't know how sex offenders would be treated in general population in prison? :shock:
Click to expand...

They chose to commit a crime and violate someone else.
They are perfectly capable of recognizing right from wrong - they *know* they've done wrong, they just chose to do it, anyway. And most make serious efforts to cover up their wrong, too.

In with teh regular population, imho, is where they belong.

If someone doesn't want to be punished for a crime then they shouldn't commit it.
 
Redress said:
Maybe I am just slow this morning. I know my caffeine level is still low...but what are you saying here?
Click to expand...

Two fold...

First, is highlighting the fact that support of this for many may very well be an emotional response, born out of a hatred for Sexual Predators, rather than one based out of principle or reason. To highlight this I changed sexual predator to terrorist and asked people to consider if they'd stll feel the same way about it.

Second, was to highlight the notion that some people see this and KNOW its a slippery slope KNOW its possibly wrong but still can't rightly get upset or heated about it, or perhaps even be against it, based on their extreme disdain for the group in question (sexual predators). After highlighting this notion, asking those same people to perhaps attempt to use that experience as a means of perhaps better understanding those who have a similar experience when it comes to terrorists.
 
Deuce said:
For a so-called libertarian that's a pretty big stick you're handing the government!

Here's my problems with such a ruling:

1) "Sex offender" and "child molester" are not the same thing. How many cases have we seen people blackmarked for life over something absurd? I remember a case where a 16 year old had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, legally. Girlfriend takes a picture of said act and sends it to him. Arrested for possession of child pornography. Or some guy gets drunk and stumbles outside naked, public indecency. Sex offender for life.

2) If we're just going to ignore sentencing, why do it in the first place? "Welp, we'll let you out when and IF we feel like it."

3) What's to stop this precedent from being expanded to robbery, smoking pot, or unlawful possession of a firearm?

Edit: And as liblady posted above, we don't imprison people for crimes they might commit.
Click to expand...

Not really when you consider that the absurd doesn't fall under the category of most. Most of us can agree that the absurd sex offenders are really just guilty of the government knowing what is best for the serfs.
 
Redress said:
Aps source linked to another ruling handed down today which I think is interesting as well: Court: Sentencing juveniles to life without parole 'cruel and unusual' – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs



I have to agree with this one. Life in prison without parole for minors is probably not a good idea except in the case of the most extreme crimes.
Click to expand...

Dont you think that this has in the past only been used in the most extreme cases.

Incidentally, by using that particular phrase 'Most extreme cases' these punishments are based on subjective decisions?
 
liblady said:
really? statistics show that first time offenders ARE not first time offenders, it was just the first time they were caught.

they went to prison with a specific sentence, and if they served that sentence, they can't be kept. we should change our laws, not ignore them.
Click to expand...

I still think you shouldn't put someone in for life on a first conviction of the crime (unless it was just a simply atrocious crime like having a child harem or something). I think we should try to rehabilitate all sex offenders and monitor them heavily after they leave prison. If they commit the crime again they should be jailed for life. I support giving everyone a second chance and introducing them back to society, but if they choose to violate the rights of others (through sex crimes) they forfeit their freedom and deserve to be jailed for life for our protection.
 
Tucker Case said:
Would I have to wear a clown suit while doing it for it to be absurd? :lol:
Click to expand...

You have to post a pic before I could make that determination. :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom