• 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

Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...
as sociopath knows right from wrong, and they choose to commit murders. what's the difference?
 
Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
good post. we can, however, change our laws to limit their freedoms once released. i'm in favor of that, and we shouldn't have any more debacles like not being able to release a person once their term has been served because we can't find a place for him.

maybe if we didn't spend so much incarcerating non violent drug offenders we could afford to provide some security against paroled sex offenders.
 
aps said:
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.
Click to expand...
well, it's my OPINION that it is unconstitutional. we can't imprison a person for a crime they might commit in the future.
 
Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

liblady said:
good post. we can, however, change our laws to limit their freedoms once released. i'm in favor of that, and we shouldn't have any more debacles like not being able to release a person once their term has been served because we can't find a place for him.

maybe if we didn't spend so much incarcerating non violent drug offenders we could afford to provide some security against paroled sex offenders.
Click to expand...

Well in terms of limiting their freedom once released, that too I'm not so much into. I think that a person gets his day in court, can plea his position to a jury of his peers, and is judged by said jury. If found guilty, the judge hands down a sentence. Once that sentence is completed, that's it. No more punishment, the full rights of the individual must once again be recognized. That to me is proper use of the government.
 
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...

What? Indefinite prison terms are 100% unacceptable. Heavy surveillence is fine, if you want to foot the billl.
 
Last edited:
Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

Ikari said:
Well in terms of limiting their freedom once released, that too I'm not so much into. I think that a person gets his day in court, can plea his position to a jury of his peers, and is judged by said jury. If found guilty, the judge hands down a sentence. Once that sentence is completed, that's it. No more punishment, the full rights of the individual must once again be recognized. That to me is proper use of the government.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Look at where are country has gone in the last ten years. We've got one group of people who now can be held indefinitely, and another that doesn't even get a trial at all. I know, terrorists and sex offenders. I hate them too. Is that really enough to trample over rights?

To steal a phrase from Navy Pride, my right-wing friends: I don't understand. You're taking the the streets, holding up signs and shouting over government overstepping its bounds because they're making you buy health insurance and maybe someone in the government is thinking about making you register your guns. I know you dislike that, but let's get some perspective here. You're taking to the streets over a $750 tax levied if you choose not to purchase health insurance, something you probably do anyway and REALLY SHOULD DO if you don't. Meanwhile, you're supporting circumstances in which you, as a citizen of this country, could be detained indefinitely without trial or held in prison beyond your sentence. I know, you don't plan on committing terrorism or rape, but that isn't the point. Rights applied selectively aren't rights at all. Why bother with Due Process if you're going to end up ignoring it?

How can you small-government types not see this as government stepping over a very critical line. Guns, health care, speech... small potatoes. The rule of law is what this country was really built on. The moment the government decides they don't need those silly trials and juries and judges, they can take away the rest of those rights.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Ruling on Sex Offenders

There will be plenty of hearings, too, for sex offenders judged too dangerous and mentally ill to be released back into society. The court's other notable decision Monday -- on a 7-2 vote -- buttresses a congressional effort in 2005 to keep in custody any past sex offender who, according to the words in the statute, "currently 'suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder' and who 'as a result of' that mental illness, abnormality, or disorder is 'sexually dangerous to others' in that 'he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.'"

The feds must bear this burden of proof under a "clear and convincing" standard, which is lower than the criminal proof standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" but higher than the civil standard, which is "by a preponderance of the evidence." And if they can, offenders will remain in custody, long past the end of their official criminal sentences, until they can establish that they are no longer dangerous or the state decides to assume "responsibility for his custody, care and treatment."
Click to expand...

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

liblady said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/breaking-news/72829-supreme-court-sex-offenders-can-held-indefinitely-6.html#post1058756021
 
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.
 
Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
hazlnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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?
 
Re: Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

liblady said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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:
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:
independent_thinker2002 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

While I'm sure many people would be fine with it, I wouldn't.
 
hazlnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why on the planet earth should we feel safe and secure when someone who is not elected or confirmed or appointed, but instead is hired, gets to decide whether or not someone gets to have their freedom back after their sentence has been completed?

Especially when their decisions will have a direct impact on the size of the budget their department receives the following fiscal year?
 
I don't think this is a good idea.
If someone serves their sentence then they should go free.
If they are a long term threat then their sentence should reflect that. If they'll be threat for the rest of their life, then sentence them to life.
But don't say one thing and then do another. That's a precedent just asking to be abused.
 
Tucker Case said:
Does taking a **** in my wife's purse while jacking off make me an absurd sex offender?
Click to expand...

As long as it's not Louis Vuitton I see no problem with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom