Ad JS

Collapse

Leaderboard

Collapse

Leaderboard Tablet

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SCOTUS: 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.
    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/17...pt=T1&iref=BN1
    Semper Paratus/Always Ready
    Originally posted by jakflak
    The bottom line: always be nice to the magic voice. All hail the magic voice!!
    Originally posted by Michigan
    I have a 1 year old daughter and at this rate I'm almost certain I'm going to end up in prison by the time she's 15 years old. I swear, the first guy that that comes knocking on my door holding onto a naked photo of my daughter.....

    Don't bother telling me, "oh it's her fault too".... I know, I have double standards. Deal with it.

    : )

  • #2
    Are they talking about detaining foreign nationals whose countries of origin will not cooperate with ICE to effect their deportations?
    Chuck

    Comment


    • #3
      Texas has done this for quite some time. They do an involuntary commitment if they find the perv is likely to be a perv again.....

      Comment


      • #4
        Good.
        Sure, that badge will get you midgets, but those midgets will get that badge!

        The more I learn about people, the more I prefer the company of my dogs.

        Comment


        • #5
          Like what I hear, but could you clarify "some". Would help a lot.

          Comment


          • #6
            Why don't we execute them?
            I miss you, Dave.
            http://www.odmp.org/officer/20669-of...david-s.-moore

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CruiserClass View Post
              Why don't we execute them?
              Hrmmm... Okay, I give up. Why don't we?
              Sure, that badge will get you midgets, but those midgets will get that badge!

              The more I learn about people, the more I prefer the company of my dogs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by yammahoppy View Post
                Texas has done this for quite some time. They do an involuntary commitment if they find the perv is likely to be a perv again.....
                I believe it is 26 states that have a civil committment for sexual predators.

                Iowa has been doing it for 15 yrs or so. So far no one has "graduated " from the program, but a couple are getting close.

                One actually was released on semi supervision..............he failed a polygraph and was sent back.
                Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS


                (F*** Off Cuz Ur Stupid)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sex offenders can be held indefinitely, the court rules.

                  (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.

                  At issue was the constitutionality of federal "civil commitment" for sex offenders who are nearing the end of their confinement or who are considered too mentally incompetent to stand trial.

                  The main plaintiff in the case, Graydon Comstock, was certified as dangerous six days before his 37-month federal prison term for processing child pornography was to end. Comstock and the others filing suit remain confined at Butner Federal Correctional Complex near Raleigh, North Carolina.

                  Three other inmates who filed suit served prison terms of three to eight years for offenses ranging from child pornography to sexual abuse of a minor. Another was charged with child sex abuse but was declared mentally incompetent to face trial.

                  All were set to be released nearly three years ago, but government appeals have blocked their freedom. The government says about 83 people are being held under the civil commitment program.

                  Corrections officials and prosecutors determined the men remained a risk for further sexually deviant behavior if freed. The inmates' attorneys maintain the continued imprisonment violates their constitutional right of due process and argue Congress overstepped its power by allowing inmates to be held for certain crimes that normally would fall under the jurisdiction of state courts.

                  The law in question is the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which includes a provision allowing indefinite confinement of sex offenders. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled lawmakers had overstepped their authority by passing it, prompting the current high court appeal.

                  "The statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," Breyer wrote.

                  Breyer equated the federal civil commitment law to Congress' long-standing authority to provide mental health care to prisoners in its custody, if they might prove dangerous, "whether sexually or otherwise."

                  In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the federal government overstepped its bounds.

                  "Congress' power, however, is fixed by the Constitution," Thomas wrote. "It does not expand merely to suit the states' policy preferences, or to allow state officials to avoid difficult choices regarding the allocation of state funds." He was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.

                  The case represented a victory for the federal government and the woman who argued the case on its behalf, Solicitor General Elena Kagan. President Obama nominated Kagan last week to serve on the Supreme Court.

                  The justices in April 2009 had blocked the imminent release of dozens of sex offenders who had served their federal sentences after the Obama administration claimed many of them remain "sexually dangerous." Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the men be kept in custody while the case worked its way to the high court.

                  Most violent sex offenses are handled at the state level, and at least 20 states run programs in which sexual predators are held indefinitely or until they are no longer considered dangerous. The federal government's civil commitment program is relatively new.

                  The Adam Walsh act was named after the son of John Walsh, host of TV's "America's Most Wanted."Adam Walsh was kidnapped and murdered by a suspected child molester in 1981.

                  The act also increased punishments for certain federal crimes against children and created a national registry for sex offenders. Those aspects of the bill were not being challenged in this case.
                  http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/...ex.html?hpt=T1
                  Semper Paratus/Always Ready
                  Originally posted by jakflak
                  The bottom line: always be nice to the magic voice. All hail the magic voice!!
                  Originally posted by Michigan
                  I have a 1 year old daughter and at this rate I'm almost certain I'm going to end up in prison by the time she's 15 years old. I swear, the first guy that that comes knocking on my door holding onto a naked photo of my daughter.....

                  Don't bother telling me, "oh it's her fault too".... I know, I have double standards. Deal with it.

                  : )

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks "A" Great info.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Child molesters... Molester sounds too innocuous. Why don't they call them what they really are -- Child Destroyers, and then maybe they would be sentenced accordingly.
                      Sure, that badge will get you midgets, but those midgets will get that badge!

                      The more I learn about people, the more I prefer the company of my dogs.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I have a huge, HUGE problem with this so-called 'civil commitment' thing. Its flat out crap to hold a prisoner after his sentence has been served.

                        I also have a huge problem with anything less than a life sentence for people who do the things that they're being 'committed' for.

                        In short: lock 'em up and throw away the key, don't keep them after they've served a crappy short sentence; its a bad precedent.
                        sigpic
                        Don't make me gassy.
                        You wouldn't LIKE me when I'm gassy...
                        _________________________________

                        If you're offended by something that I've said...it was just your turn.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree with ComicGuy. Don't keep them after their sentence is out as it does set a bad precedent. Instead, just sentence them to life without parole or keep them in the mental health system forever.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by LINY View Post
                            I agree with ComicGuy. Don't keep them after their sentence is out as it does set a bad precedent. Instead, just sentence them to life without parole or keep them in the mental health system forever.
                            +1

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Lock em' up and throw away the key. Once they put their hands on a child I could care less about their quality of life.

                              God help them if one of those monsters ever puts a hand on a member of my family.
                              Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand...

                              Comment

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 9694 users online. 411 members and 9283 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X