• 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

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

The Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to indefinitely keep some sex offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences, if officials determine those inmates may prove "sexually dangerous" in the future.

"The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority.

Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

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!
 
Last edited:
I think this is the wrong way to go about this. If jail is not sufficient to rehabilitate these folks, than they probably need to be in a psychiatric facility instead.
 
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!

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.
 
I would like to see how it is implemented before I make a judgement. Obviously, a two time, or three time, sex offender being held indefinitely causes me a lot less psychic pain than--for instance--forgetting to turn off my bedroom lights when I leave my house. On the other hand, I don't want two or three time "sex offenders" being locked up indefinitely for urinating in public and/or streaking at a game.
 
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

Sentencing some juvenile criminals to life in prison without parole is "cruel and unusual" punishment, especially when their crime is not murder, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

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.
 
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.
 
its ridiculous, if there's a high chance of them re-offending, as megaprogman said, they should be sent to a psych ward.
 
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.

I agree with you, but the problem I have is that we can make the penalty under the law to be life in prison without parole. I think that is a more sensible way to handle it. Change it at the sentencing level, not just say that if the government finds they may be a threat after they have served their sentence, we can hold them. That concept scares me.
 
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.
 
I skimmed the opinions, and it should be noted that only mentally ill patients classified as sexually ill who have committed violent sexual acts against children and are considered likely to relapse qualify. A hearing to determine danger to society is set up like a trial, where the accused has council and evidence is presented. If found a danger, the inmate will be transmitted to mental institution, either state or federal.

This sort of thing skates on really thin ice. You serve your sentence in prison, no more and no less. Anything else is a miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, the state does have the ability to commit dangerous mentally unbalanced people to institutions, indefinitely if needed. What bothers me is the inconsistency of the whole matter. If the perp is so crazy they need to be locked up in a mental facility, they should have been allowed to plead insanity during the trial and sent to an institution instead of prison in the first place. Second, it seems to imply that sex offenders are being treated differently than other dangerous mentally ill people, which doesn't sit right either.
 
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:

Supreme Court: Terrorists can be held indefinitely

The Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to indefinitely keep some terrorists behind bars after they have served their sentences, if officials determine those inmates may prove "dangerous" in the future.

"The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority.

Would we still be fine with it?

Redress actually made a sentiment in this thread which I think explains the view of some people who don't exactly like the way we've handled terrorists or terrorist suspects but don't also throw a huge fit about it:

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.

Switch out sexual predators with terrorists.

I think if anything this is a good way for some people to possibly get in the mind of posters who are willing to possibly tempt that slippery slope and the precedent it sets with regards to terrorists because...like many with sexual predators...they detest and despise terrorists and thus have a hard time getting worked up over issues that involve them getting punished.

Just a thought.
 
I agree with this decision and am thrilled that they have made it!

I think this is the wrong way to go about this. If jail is not sufficient to rehabilitate these folks, than they probably need to be in a psychiatric facility instead.

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.
 
I can't believe the editor let this title print.

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

Sex offenders just want to be held.

:rofl I thought the same thing.




As to the ruling, if the courts want to detain the offender (any offender) indefinitely, then they should sentence them to life with no parole.

Once they serve their complete sentence, they should always go free, no exceptions.

The easy solution is to give life sentences to sex offenders.
 
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.

Me too! I'm fascinated by that.
 
:rofl I thought the same thing.




As to the ruling, if the courts want to detain the offender (any offender) indefinitely, then they should sentence them to life with no parole.

Once they serve their complete sentence, they should always go free, no exceptions.

The easy solution is to give life sentences to sex offenders.

I read this wrong. My comments were directed at pre-trial conditions.

I agree with life sentences for sex offenders for instances with pre-pubescent victims, violent assaults, and drugging/date rapes. Some overzealous prosecutors will file sex crimes charges against 16 year old girls and their boyfriends for a picture of her breasts thus labelling them "sex offenders". There should be a different category for instances like this.
 
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.
So because you dislike someone labeled "sex offender" you believe their rights should be violated by the government? If they are that dangerous then they should be given life sentences to begin with.
Second, there is a very serious difference between "sex offender" and "pedophile". Conflating the two for the purpose of punishment is wrong, very wrong.
I skimmed the opinions, and it should be noted that only mentally ill patients classified as sexually ill who have committed violent sexual acts against children and are considered likely to relapse qualify. A hearing to determine danger to society is set up like a trial, where the accused has council and evidence is presented. If found a danger, the inmate will be transmitted to mental institution, either state or federal.
That's the description they want to use today, next time, maybe they drop the "mentally ill" part. It's a slippery slope and this is the wrong way to go about it.

This sort of thing skates on really thin ice. You serve your sentence in prison, no more and no less. Anything else is a miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, the state does have the ability to commit dangerous mentally unbalanced people to institutions, indefinitely if needed. What bothers me is the inconsistency of the whole matter. If the perp is so crazy they need to be locked up in a mental facility, they should have been allowed to plead insanity during the trial and sent to an institution instead of prison in the first place. Second, it seems to imply that sex offenders are being treated differently than other dangerous mentally ill people, which doesn't sit right either.
Exactly!
 
Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" after their prison terms are complete.

The high court on Monday reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered "sexually dangerous."

You know, I am kind of torn on this. On one hand, once a sentence that is handed down by a court is served, then it is done, or at least should be. But, on the other hand, what do we do with those who will no doubt molest children again, and ruin their lives? I say we keep them in prison, or if they want out badly enough, give them the option of castration in order to rejoin society.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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?

Redress actually made a sentiment in this thread which I think explains the view of some people who don't exactly like the way we've handled terrorists or terrorist suspects but don't also throw a huge fit about it:



Switch out sexual predators with terrorists.

I think if anything this is a good way for some people to possibly get in the mind of posters who are willing to possibly tempt that slippery slope and the precedent it sets with regards to terrorists because...like many with sexual predators...they detest and despise terrorists and thus have a hard time getting worked up over issues that involve them getting punished.

Just a thought.

Maybe I am just slow this morning. I know my caffeine level is still low...but what are you saying here?
 
time to watch one flew over the cuckoo's nest before reading the court's opinion(s)
 
I agree with you, but the problem I have is that we can make the penalty under the law to be life in prison without parole. I think that is a more sensible way to handle it. Change it at the sentencing level, not just say that if the government finds they may be a threat after they have served their sentence, we can hold them. That concept scares me.

I agree. After they have served their time they shouldn't be locked up again unless they commit another crime. I should have clarified better. If someone is a first time offender I don't support locking them up for life or hunting them down when they get out if they have done nothing wrong. For second time offenders I support a life sentence without parole in prison.

So because you dislike someone labeled "sex offender" you believe their rights should be violated by the government? If they are that dangerous then they should be given life sentences to begin with.
Second, there is a very serious difference between "sex offender" and "pedophile". Conflating the two for the purpose of punishment is wrong, very wrong.
Quote:
What about the rights of the violated children? I don't support giving them a life sentence for a first offense (unless it was a very disturbing case and the guy is clearly a sicko). I think sex offenders and pedophiles deserve equal punishment. Sex offenders who commit rape against adults is sick as well and deserves life in jail for a repeated offense. I would say it's more serious when someone rapes a child, but both crimes are horrific and deserve a life sentence for repeat offenses.
 
Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

You know, I am kind of torn on this. On one hand, once a sentence that is handed down by a court is served, then it is done, or at least should be. But, on the other hand, what do we do with those who will no doubt molest children again, and ruin their lives? I say we keep them in prison, or if they want out badly enough, give them the option of castration in order to rejoin society.

Discussion?

Article is here.

There is a fascinating discussion on this going here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-blogs/72829-supreme-court-sex-offenders-can-held-indefinitely.html

It really is an interesting and I think important topic, and the lines of who agrees and disagrees is interesting.
 
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".
 
Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

There is a fascinating discussion on this going here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ourt-sex-offenders-can-held-indefinitely.html

It really is an interesting and I think important topic, and the lines of who agrees and disagrees is interesting.

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.
 
Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

You know, I am kind of torn on this. On one hand, once a sentence that is handed down by a court is served, then it is done, or at least should be. But, on the other hand, what do we do with those who will no doubt molest children again, and ruin their lives? I say we keep them in prison, or if they want out badly enough, give them the option of castration in order to rejoin society.

Discussion?

Article is here.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom