Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html?hpt=T1

Quote :

"(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to keep some sex offenders behind bars indefinitely 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."

What do you all think about this?

Let's get past the "HURRRRR HURRRR, THEY'RE SEX OFFENDERS, SO THEY CAN DIE FOR ALL I CARE"

I'm more interested in what you all think about locking someone up indefinitely, even after the original sentence has expired.

5/17/2010 11:58:36 AM

HURRRRR HURRRR, THEY'RE SEX OFFENDERS, SO THEY CAN DIE FOR ALL I CARE

5/17/2010 11:59:36 AM

Keep the sex offenders behind bars indefinitely, but let the murderers out on parole or out early for "good behavior".

5/17/2010 11:59:43 AM

why is there soap box in my chit chat EMCE?

5/17/2010 12:00:17 PM

so emce...are they threatening to keep you locked away forever?

5/17/2010 12:01:00 PM

I don't particularly enjoy the soapbox, for a number of reasons


^ you're never going to let that night go are you? Look, for the last time, I was drunk... you were passed out. Things happened. It's not like you even felt anything

5/17/2010 12:01:07 PM

THIS MUST BE THE DREADED EMCE X!!!!!!!

5/17/2010 12:01:49 PM

bwahahaha

5/17/2010 12:02:40 PM

it's bullshit. change the laws so all serious sex offenders/rapists and murderers are fried or locked up forever.

however, as laws currently stand, once you do the time, you should be set free.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 12:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 12:02:49 PM

I didn't feel anything even when I wasn't passed out drunk!

BURN!

5/17/2010 12:03:24 PM

Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to prevent laws that piss on the constitution?

5/17/2010 12:03:24 PM

^the courts have been slack on that role for years.

5/17/2010 12:05:48 PM

I'd rather have the ones that are actually a threat locked up than roaming around with ankle bracelets or something...

5/17/2010 12:05:49 PM

AndyMac, that's why I see this as a pretty big deal. The highest court in the land has just set a precedent that basically says "Hey, look... we see that you've done your time. Buuuuut, we changed out mind. Sorry 'bout it".

5/17/2010 12:06:03 PM

when i was young and stupid i thought the purpose of prison was rehabilitation but since this isnt true at all, might as well keep everyone that goes to prison in prison or put em down

5/17/2010 12:06:15 PM

^

5/17/2010 12:06:40 PM

i kind of agree, but only if they actually find really good indications that the offender cannot control themselves or doesnt want to


I feel like this could be abused and those that served their time and are truly contrite may be held unnecessarily

i actually believe rehabilitation is possible in individuals, i also feel like if they should be on a offender list forever, but aside from that hell let em live


i feel like protecting children warrants this, anyone can fuck up/fall on hard times and make a mistake of murdering someone they should be held for that forever

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM. Reason : h]

5/17/2010 12:07:32 PM

I disagree with the ruling because it allows too much room for interpretation, which means it can and will be used to hold people in prison indefinitely that it was not intended for.

Examples:
kids who sext each other get charged with kiddie porn trafficking and become sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

Why are we charging kids who take nude pictures of themselves and show them to someone with a crime that's intended to protect those same kids? They are basically both the offender and the victim of the same crime. Also, is this really what the sex offender registry is supposed to protect us from?

Streakers and those caught peeing in public have also been slapped with the sex offender label (depending on state). Again, logic should dictate that these are not the type of predators that the sex offender registry means to protect us from.

Giving the feds power to hold sex offenders indefinitely gives them a loophole to hold anyone you can throw a sex offender label at as long as they want without any true recourse.

5/17/2010 12:16:57 PM

Looking at the reasons for imprisonment, I think this is putting too much of an emphasis on societal protection (while I do think protecting the public is important) and turning a blind eye to the other reasons such as retribution, rehabilitation, or education.

5/17/2010 12:17:52 PM

^i do wonder how they would determine whether someone is fit for reintroduction

kind of scary, im sure they will err on the side of caution so i am sure some legit releases will get fucked by this

Quote :

"kids who sext each other get charged with kiddie porn trafficking and become sex offenders for the rest of their lives. "

no kidding, i would even go so far as to include most statutory rapists, i.e. the 23 year old marine that bangs a 15-16 year old



[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 12:21 PM. Reason : d]

5/17/2010 12:19:55 PM

that's the thing...
a jury of peers along with laws determines guilt and sentencing in the first place. I doubt that same "courtesy" would be extended for an incarcerated individual. It would probably be left up to a much smaller panel of psychologists, judges, rehabilitation professionals, or other members of the prison staff. It definitely has the potential to turn ugly pretty quick.

5/17/2010 12:23:00 PM

this seems like much more of a slippery slope than to just to increase what a max sentence could be for sex offenses

5/17/2010 12:23:33 PM

Quote :

"a jury of peers along with laws determines guilt and sentencing in the first place. I doubt that same "courtesy" would be extended for an incarcerated individual. It would probably be left up to a much smaller panel of psychologists, judges, rehabilitation professionals, or other members of the prison staff. It definitely has the potential to turn ugly pretty quick."

All it would take is one newly-released child-fucker finding a new victim during an election year and suddenly the governor/mayor will find a way to inject his input into the decision process. Then no one will ever get released because no governor wants to be responsible for the Willie Horton of sex offenders.

5/17/2010 12:33:35 PM

Quote :

"Keep the sex offenders behind bars indefinitely, but let the murderers out on parole or out early for "good behavior". "

did not read the quote in the op?

Quote :

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

I'm pretty sure that if a murderer proves he is still dangerous, then they will not let them out.

5/17/2010 12:37:33 PM

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but to me this seems like 1) double jeopardy (more specifically, multiple punishments for the same offense) and2) cruel and unusual punishment

5/17/2010 12:40:22 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure that if a murderer proves he is still dangerous, then they will not let them out."

Not true. If a murderer (or whoever) is sentenced to 15 years, and they serve those 15 years, they are released regardless of whether or not someone "thinks" they're dangerous.

What's happening here is that someone is serving their required time, and after their time is served they are held indefinitely because someone "thinks" they "may" do something in the future.

It's unconstitutional, plain and simple.

5/17/2010 12:43:09 PM

okay, so what I mean is that...if someone does not express good behavior/progress, then they will not get let out early, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if a murderer proves to be violent in prison then a sentence can change....ex. murder, rape, assault

proves is the key word

does this happen?

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 12:52 PM. Reason : d]

5/17/2010 12:50:44 PM

Correct.

But that's not the case here.

People are being held after serving their full sentence under the law.

Regardless of how you feel towards sexual predators, if your problem is that they're being released, then you should push for stronger sentences.

5/17/2010 12:52:10 PM

the article only says "may prove"

i didn't see any text of the actual ruling. The verbiage in the actual ruling is what matters, of course.

5/17/2010 12:53:15 PM

Quote :

"did not read the quote in the op?"

yes, i read the quote. it's about sex offenders. there is no mention of murderers. hence my .

i think this law is ridiculous. but if it is a necessity, then it should be for murderers as well.

5/17/2010 12:57:35 PM

5/17/2010 12:58:53 PM

If so, what's next?

Keep a guy caught with a pound of weed in jail for life because he "one day might sell again?"

Keep a kid who burglarizes in his youth in jail for life because he doesn't feel remorse for stealing?

5/17/2010 12:59:13 PM

...that's why i said it was ridiculous.

5/17/2010 1:00:30 PM

aside from being unconstitutional, I think that this sets a precedence for punishing people for things that they might do sometime in the future.

if anything, I think that Tom Cruise in Minority Report was trying to warn us of the dangers of this...

5/17/2010 1:02:43 PM

totally unconstitutional. The failure to rehabilitate a prisoner is a failure of the prison system. If they're still dangerous, keep an eye on them and if they attempt to do something, then grab them and this time rehabilitate them. If they were so dangerous that they shouldn't be released, then the sentance should have been stronger and carried some conditions of parole. This is just more of the fed shitting all over civil liberties.

5/17/2010 1:03:18 PM

America: Prison state.


I disagree wholeheartedly with this ruling.


If you think that a person is likely to still be a danger to society, fix the sentencing. Do not stop-loss prisoners. It's way too open to interpretation.

5/17/2010 1:03:37 PM

^

5/17/2010 1:04:23 PM

As long as this solves the sparse prison population problem.

5/17/2010 1:43:58 PM

yeah, I guess theyll just have to let these people go after their time has beenp served and if they fuck up again, then there is their proof.

I mean, I'm sure they get released on parole, right?

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 1:55 PM. Reason : f]

5/17/2010 1:54:06 PM

states have done this for years, the case concerned the ability of the federal government to implement the same directive

5/17/2010 1:55:52 PM

Quote :

"I disagree wholeheartedly with this ruling. "

5/17/2010 1:56:20 PM

Quote :

" I think that Tom Cruise in Minority Report was trying to warn us of the dangers of this..."

lol no way he cares about us - he already bought his seat on the space ship

5/17/2010 1:56:46 PM

It's a pretty large stretch to argue that this ruling will inevitably lead to the indefinite incarceration of [pick your crime] because of either a general societal concern of future harm, or specific harm anticipated from the offender (i.e. a murderer killing again).

You need to realize that not every sex offender is held beyond his or her term. The average 18 year old who becomes a convicted sex offender after being prosecuted for banging his 13 year old girlfriend is not going to be locked up beyond his sentence without some special circumstances.

In actuality, those that are being held beyond their terms are mostly kept at a special facility at the Federal Penitentiary in Butner, NC. These individuals have all been subjected to extensive medical and psychological testing throughout their time in prison, which led to the conclusion that they were at special risk of reoffending.

It makes no sense to compare the damage caused by most sex offenses to those of drug use, and many of the other crimes you guys have come up with. The effect of the act often lasts a lifetime, damaging/haunting the victim forever. Moreover, the sexual offenders themselves are often not like most other criminals.

The offender who collects thousands of images and videos of child pornography, while also pursuing contact with actual children to act out his or her fantasies is not your typical thief or weed dealer who has done wrong and may atone and learn quickly from their actions. Often times these offenders are psychologically-disturbed individuals whose problems lie beyond the abilities of traditional prison rehabilitation programs. Indeed, the recidivism rates of most sex offenders lies well above the rates for other criminals, even above that of rapists in some cases. Studies have also been conducted (at the Butner facility) that tend to show those offenders who are convicted of mere possession of things like child porn have a much higher tendency to pursue actual contact with a child/other victim if not treated.

Based on a cursory knowledge of the program at issue, along with a perusing of articles written by analysts (many of whom have no legal training or experience reading/analyzing SCOTUS cases), most of you simply assume that being a sex offender relegates you automatically to a life of imprisonment beyond your term when in actuality the federal program at issue seeks to continue incarceration and treatment until it can be reasonably assured that the individual will not lapse. The program is not the creation of some Soviet-style gulag where offenders are locked up, but one that recognizes both the unique nature of the harm caused by these offenders, as well as their unique tendencies relating to recidivism. Each inmate is subject to regular testing and evaluation by qualified medical professionals, and are not simply locked away in some dank basement cell for the rest of their lives.

While the oversight of the program may need to be reviewed, and the methods of examination held under a closer scrutiny, the answer is not to simply scrap the entire program and release a large number of convicted and dangerous sex criminals back into society based simply on a snap reaction to something that at first glance seems unfair.

5/17/2010 2:27:50 PM

Doesn't this read like it only applies to FEDERAL cases or ones where the state hands over custody to the feds if it's someone who needs a supermax facility?

5/17/2010 2:50:24 PM

due process and shit

5/17/2010 2:51:15 PM

never thought i'd agree with scalia or thomas

5/17/2010 2:52:35 PM

Quote :

"It's a pretty large stretch to argue that this ruling will inevitably lead to the indefinite incarceration of [pick your crime] because of either a general societal concern of future harm, or specific harm anticipated from the offender (i.e. a murderer killing again). You need to realize that not every sex offender is held beyond his or her term. The average 18 year old who becomes a convicted sex offender after being prosecuted for banging his 13 year old girlfriend is not going to be locked up beyond his sentence without some special circumstances. In actuality, those that are being held beyond their terms are mostly kept at a special facility at the Federal Penitentiary in Butner, NC. These individuals have all been subjected to extensive medical and psychological testing throughout their time in prison, which led to the conclusion that they were at special risk of reoffending. It makes no sense to compare the damage caused by most sex offenses to those of drug use, and many of the other crimes you guys have come up with. The effect of the act often lasts a lifetime, damaging/haunting the victim forever. Moreover, the sexual offenders themselves are often not like most other criminals. The offender who collects thousands of images and videos of child pornography, while also pursuing contact with actual children to act out his or her fantasies is not your typical thief or weed dealer who has done wrong and may atone and learn quickly from their actions. Often times these offenders are psychologically-disturbed individuals whose problems lie beyond the abilities of traditional prison rehabilitation programs. Indeed, the recidivism rates of most sex offenders lies well above the rates for other criminals, even above that of rapists in some cases. Studies have also been conducted (at the Butner facility) that tend to show those offenders who are convicted of mere possession of things like child porn have a much higher tendency to pursue actual contact with a child/other victim if not treated. Based on a cursory knowledge of the program at issue, along with a perusing of articles written by analysts (many of whom have no legal training or experience reading/analyzing SCOTUS cases), most of you simply assume that being a sex offender relegates you automatically to a life of imprisonment beyond your term when in actuality the federal program at issue seeks to continue incarceration and treatment until it can be reasonably assured that the individual will not lapse. The program is not the creation of some Soviet-style gulag where offenders are locked up, but one that recognizes both the unique nature of the harm caused by these offenders, as well as their unique tendencies relating to recidivism. Each inmate is subject to regular testing and evaluation by qualified medical professionals, and are not simply locked away in some dank basement cell for the rest of their lives. While the oversight of the program may need to be reviewed, and the methods of examination held under a closer scrutiny, the answer is not to simply scrap the entire program and release a large number of convicted and dangerous sex criminals back into society based simply on a snap reaction to something that at first glance seems unfair."

First they came for the pedophiles, and I said nothing...

5/17/2010 2:57:29 PM

Quote :

"Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to prevent laws that piss on the constitution?"

The Court doesn't really do too much of that...

and with the Constitution relegated largely to irrelevance, that's pretty much what one would expect.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM. Reason : and I'm all for the intent of this law, but it's too dangerous.]

5/17/2010 3:04:43 PM

much higher rate of repeat offenders

5/17/2010 4:05:15 PM

set em up

5/17/2010 4:15:07 PM