Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/17/su ... 1&iref=BN1

Supreme Court just decided that sex offenders can be held indefinitely in prison by the government, even after their sentence is over if the person is deemed dangerous to society.

I know sex offenders aren't exactly the most liked people, but I truly believe this is a slippery slope the Supreme Court just put us on. This is definitely one of those rulings that can be abused, and it just set a precedent for similar cases that may come up regarding other offenses.

I need someone smarter than I am to weigh in - I agree, it could be a slippery slope and how does one come to the conclusion that someone is too dangerous to be allowed to be released? I've no problem with the concept of sex offenders being locked away for extremely long periods of time, and maybe for life, but why shouldn't that be handled during the sentencing portion of their trial? Putting someone away for 10 years for a crime, but then, after 10 years, saying that you're going to hold someone for say, ever, seems dangerously arbitrary. I'd rather the initial sentence be indefinite or incredibly long rather than the 10 years that doesn't end up being 10 years.

Whoa - definately don't like this.

I am going to wait until there is a little more descriptive article on the opinion but at first glance that is terrible.

I am one that believes that pedophiles (the extreme kind) should be in jail for the rest of their lives, but it should not be decided by some board of sex offender police or whatever group would have jurisdiction in such matters.

Still not certain about this but apparently it pertains to individuals who are "mentally ill" ( I assume the diagnosis would come from a doctor) and sexually dangerous. That might lessen the concern some since some one who is mentally ill and considered a danger to themselves or others can be put away with out conviction now, right?

dbackjon wrote:Whoa - definately don't like this.

Why not? I love this law! It is just the government keeping us little people safe and secure all the while the bad men are locked up and forgotten about. I figured you, being a "the government knows best" kind of guy, would love this new law as well. Weird.

Why even bother with the trial by jury?

OL FU wrote:I am going to wait until there is a little more descriptive article on the opinion but at first glance that is terrible.

For all the arguments here of a biased news media, why just read the articles? Because, ya know, you could get the information straight from the horses mouth (and the dissent as well):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't read the entire thing yet. Just the first couple of pages of the opinion and the dissent. I'm interested to see what the concurring opinion holds.

dbackjon wrote:Whoa - definately don't like this.

So you agree with Justices Scalia and Thomas.....................

Skjellyfetti wrote:Why even bother with the trial by jury?

Well theres this thingy called the constitution and its like, totally worth reading and stuff.

PS -- Again, I haven't read the Opinion of the Court and won't be touching Constitutional issues here.

But don't we do similar things with other "mentally ill" folks? Give them a hearing before an unbiased judge and present evidence that they're mentally ill and have the capacity to harm themselves or others. If they're found in that condition, they're treated in a place that specializes in mental wellness.

I share the fears of many of you, but wouldn't this process -- if it's conducted fairly (and from the accounts I've read so far it would be) -- simply allow for that type of process for those charged that have a mental illness that predisposes them to this type of behavior?

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:PS -- Again, I haven't read the Opinion of the Court and won't be touching Constitutional issues here.

But don't we do similar things with other "mentally ill" folks? Give them a hearing before an unbiased judge and present evidence that they're mentally ill and have the capacity to harm themselves or others. If they're found in that condition, they're treated in a place that specializes in mental wellness.

I share the fears of many of you, but wouldn't this process -- if it's conducted fairly (and from the accounts I've read so far it would be) -- simply allow for that type of process for those charged that have a mental illness that predisposes them to this type of behavior?

My use of the term article was probably the wrong one, but I do believe the term used in one article I read "mentally ill" somewhat changes my view. (Although additional information is required). But I believe you are saying the same thing I ask. Can't mentally ill people who pose a threat be "incarcerated" now. So I am not sure exactly what this changes other than the people are already incarcerated. As I said, lots to think about before making up one's mind.

With that said and considering the rate of recidivism (sp) among extreme pedophiles, I have always been inclined to keep these people locked up forever. Call me heartless, but I can think of nothing worse than an adult molesting a child and if one commits the act once, protecting other children is more important than a second chance.

Still lots to think about.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Why even bother with the trial by jury?

Well theres this thingy called the constitution and its like, totally worth reading and stuff.

Troof, it gives the Federal government a lot more power than National Defense.

I have only quickly read the Opinion and the Code section that was being challenged but here is what I get is what the Supreme Court had to rule:

Whether the Federal Government has the authority under Article 1 of the Constitution to enact a federal civil commitment program whereby the DoJ has the right to detain a (mentally ill?) sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date that the prisoner would otherwise be released.

By the law, a court would have to find by a clear and convincing evidence that the person is a sexually dangerous person in order to keep holding - but the only question being decided was whether or not the Federal Government is allowed to enact this law

Not quite sure about the mentally ill part because while it was stated inthe Opinion, my quick reading of the law did not see that it was only limited to mentally ill individuals.