http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18offenders.html
In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued confinement of some sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.
No comment. Just getting word out. No words can describe.... Constitution was just used as toilet paper.
Edit:
I can't be bothered looking this up, but I heard on radio news that people are pushing an animal-abuse registry for offenders.
Wibee:Constitution was just used as toilet paper. Didn't know it was good enough.
Wibee:Constitution was just used as toilet paper.
This could be the beginning of a movement to use physchiatric commitment to by pass the criminal system in order to imprison people without jury trials. In a way, its surpising thats its not more common already. I guess the gullibility of juries makes it unneccesary so far.
Peace
i don tknow if the story is true or not.
vilent assaults where sex is involed should be treated as violent assaults. extending assault where non-consencsual sex takes place shoudl just be additional counts of assault
for the particulary depraved where youth or infants (where sex is inmpossible) are involved perhpas chemical treatments after a various sentences.
but again that would be a violent assault.
dirty old men or gropers or cell phone playground photographers, etc i dont see as an issue.
probably a fake story. i don tsee how a sentence can not be a sentence though.
Oh those poor sex offenders.
"In his concurrence, Justice Alito said he was concerned about both “the breadth of the court’s language” and “the ambiguity of the standard that the court applies.”
But he said the civil confinement law passed constitutional muster. “Just as it is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the apprehension of escaped federal prisoners,” he wrote, “it is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the civil commitment of dangerous federal prisoners who would otherwise escape civil commitment as a result of federal imprisonment.”
Sounds fine to me.
What system of justice uses coercion to restrict liberty after the price demanded by the due process of justice has been paid?
A system of justice that is willing to hold these people if they think they're still a potential danger. This is the standard:
"If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by “clear and convincing” evidence — a heightened standard, but short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” — it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or a state assumes responsibility for them."
Again, sounds fine to me, I'm glad they're doing it, I don't want those people back on the streets until the authorities think they're safe.
Live_Free_Or_Die: What system of justice uses coercion to restrict liberty after the price demanded by the due process of justice has been paid?
Bloomj has a point, though.
The issue here is that when people read 'sex offender' it conjures up a powerful emotive response – even moreso if children are involved. People not directly involved in the cases will likely want even more punitive measures taken against those offenders (like turning them into eunuchs), or at least hold the 'he's getting what he deserved' attitude.
Ludwig von Mises: "We must see conditions as they really are, not as we want them to be."
Ever seen Watchmen? "Men go to jail, dogs get put down."
As AndrewR points out, they're lucky this is all they get, one can imagine far worse punishments.
What point does Bloomj have? That you can declare someone competent to stand trial, convict them, and ten years later declare incompetence with the stroke of a pen?
Blah, who cares what you think? The law is the law and I like this one. You don't like it? Get the ruling overturned. Until you do, this is how things work.
Btw, they're not being declared incompetent to stand trial, read the opinion before you say things that make no sense.
Here, I'll even do the work for you, all you have to do is read a little: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1224.ZO.html
What exactly is a "sex offender"? Is it a rapist? Is it a 19 year old male who had consensual sex with a 15 year old female? Is it right to punish people indefinitely, and at great cost? What if the core is made of cheese?
Might makes right? It's an even weaker argument than legal positivism.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Certain crimes carry much more emotional weight than others and people who read those articles and will rejoice at the idea of sex offenders being permanently imprisoned or monitored. Why do you think executions and hangings were such popular events in the past? People not directly involved in the trials won't care a whit about the semantics (why should they?) and simply give the court's judgement the benefit of doubt as, again, the nature of the crime will determine how powerfully outsiders feel about it.
Afterall, 'sex offender' implies the worst sort of individual imaginable and if a child is involved then the offender will probably regard prison as a sanctuary – unless the other prisoners don't try to lynch this individual, instead.
Yes, from a logical and purely ethical perspective it might be unfair, but overall society will merely rationalise it as 'he got what he deserved!'. How do you change that attitude? Can it be done? Should it be done?
E.R. Olovetto: Might makes right? It's an even weaker argument than legal positivism.
Who cares if it's right or wrong? It's the law. If you don't like it, it doesn't matter unless you can change it. The law isn't about right and wrong it's about what is and is not allowed.
Moreover, if you guys actually read the opinion, it's clear that Congress has the power to make laws like this, it's been established in precedent and found to be constitutional by a majority of Supreme Court judges. That's the way the game works. You don't think it's right? Who cares?
Who cares if it's right or wrong? It's the law. If you don't like it, it doesn't matter unless you can change it. The law isn't about right and wrong it's about what is and is not allowed. Moreover, if you guys actually read the opinion, it's clear that Congress has the power to make laws like this, it's been established in precedent and found to be constitutional by a majority of Supreme Court judges. That's the way the game works. You don't think it's right? Who cares?
One wonders, upon reading this, what contribution this makes to the discussion. In essence, you are saying, "Shut up, the Supreme Court has spoken. Your opinion doesn't matter."
But then why would yours?
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
"We take these five considerations together. They include: (1) the breadth of the Necessary and Proper Clause, (2) the long history of federal involvement in this arena, (3) the sound reasons for the statute’s enactment in light of the Government’s custodial interest in safeguarding the public from dangers posed by those in federal custody, (4) the statute’s accommodation of state interests, and (5) the statute’s narrow scope. Taken together, these considerations lead us to conclude that 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. The Constitution consequently authorizes Congress to enact the statute.
We do not reach or decide any claim that the statute or its application denies equal protection of the laws, procedural or substantive due process, or any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondents are free to pursue those claims on remand, and any others they have preserved."
gocrew: But then why would yours?
My opinion doesn't matter in this discussion. In this discussion, the only opinion that matters is the Supreme Court's. And the SCOTUS's reasoning is provided in the opinion.
Who cares if it's right or wrong? It's the law. If you don't like it, it doesn't matter unless you can change it.
Argumentum ad baculum, how insightful bloom.
The law isn't about right and wrong it's about what is and is not allowed.
Actually, libertarians such as myself have outlined a rational basis for law. Considering that the last time I linked you stuff to read you recoiled at 40 pages, I am not expecting a substantive argument from you anytime soon.
Moreover, if you guys actually read the opinion, it's clear that Congress has the power to make laws like this, it's been established in precedent and found to be constitutional by a majority of Supreme Court judges.
Prove why I should care what Congress or the SC says. The burden of proof is always on those who intend to coerce to show that coercion is justified.
This case is a good example of the importance of getting rid of all government.
The principle of indefinite detention is not, per se, a bad one. If there is a criminal - and it doesn't have to be a sex offender - who simply will not or cannot be made to play nicely with others, keeping them forever removed from civil society is a necessary action, it seems to me. But can we really trust the government to do it?
But this question of trust can be applied to any aspect of government. There are things the government does which need to be done, but how can we possibly trust it?
At any rate, if you'll permit me a moment to play the let's-fix-the-unfixable game, it would make more sense if those responsible for releasing criminals were paid for every released inmate who walked the straight and narrow and fined for all recidivism.
Whatever ERO, you have nothing meaningful to say about this decision other than you think it's wrong. Fine, you think it's wrong.
You seem to think your moral/rational arguments carry more weight than a SCOTUS ruling. But they don't.
If you want to contest this ruling, you can bring suit against it the next time a sex offender is found to have a "continued civil commitment."
So why post?
E.R. Olovetto: Prove why I should care what Congress or the SC says.
Prove why I should care what Congress or the SC says.
You don't have to care, you simply have to obey. Although this really doesn't even apply to you unless you're a sex offender or planning on becoming one.
E.R. Olovetto: The burden of proof is always on those who intend to coerce to show that coercion is justified.
The burden of proof is always on those who intend to coerce to show that coercion is justified.
First of all, who set that rule?
Whatever ERO, you have nothing meaningful to say about this decision other than you think it's wrong. Fine, you think it's wrong. You seem to think your moral/rational arguments carry more weight than a SCOTUS ruling. But they don't. If you want to contest this ruling, you can bring suit against it the next time a sex offender is found to have a "continued civil commitment."
Again, we can look at "weight" as "who has the guns" or who can mount a rational defense for their actions. I'm 1-0 bloom, thanks for playing.
gocrew: So why post?
I'm wasting time until gamestop opens.
It seems to me that his opinion against it has as much effect as your opinion for it. One wonders why you come to a place where opinions are supposed to be discussed to tell us, after giving your opinion on the matter, that opinions don't matter.
Does this rise to the level of a performative contradiction?
You're 0 for 1. The law doesn't work on a rational basis, it's all about who has the guns. If your "rational basis" mattered, you'd be the one making this ruling. Ah, but you're not. Thanks for playing, come again.
I'm wasting time
I agree.
But I have lots of time to waste and I do enjoy thinking about the law.
I wouldn't call what you're doing thinking. Indeed, your position seems to be that ideas don't matter. They have the guns, you declare, without stopping to think that there is no law of physics that makes a man obey another. What matters are ideas, like the ones some are discussing here, the ones you say don't bother discussing because they have the guns, the guns which are in the hands of the men who operate, unlike a chemical, on the ideas they have accepted.
Go tell Thomas Paine not to write Common Sense. Go tell the Apostles not to preach what Jesus told them. Go tell William Lloyd Garrison not to fight slavery. Go tell Elizabeth Cady Stanton to return to the kitchen. Ideas, you see, are worthless.
Who cares what you'd call what I'm doing crew?
Your right, it is a waste of time to talk to you. My purpose was to point out your lunacy for those reading who there might be hope for. You don't have the guns either and are as much a subject of the state as me. Your argument boils down to a single logical fallacy.
I don't know, I have done no surveys on the matter. Why do you ask? And if I can bother you with a second question, why do you avoid the substantive points I raised?
But the guns are on my side ERO. So I get what I want and you lose. And when the guns are pointed at me, I just try to change the law. If I can't I obey.
It's a waste of time to talk to you because you've got your head lodged so far in a philosophy book that you have forgotten how the game actually functions. But I'm a generous person and I have nothing to do for an hour so I come here and remind you how the game works. 2-0.
@Crew, You have raised no substantive points in regards to the legal question.
Because it is what it is and it's pointless to question it. The reasoning of a model citizen!
But you are arguing with me apart from the legal question, so why not address my points? Otherwise, it makes you look glib or even cowardly.
Oh by all means question the law. But don't talk to me about morals and rationality, talk to me about the legal questions. Does the Congress have the power to make laws such as this concurrent with the necessary and proper clause? Yes, the SCOTUS has ruled that it does. Has the court ruled on this issue in relation to the broader issue of due process of equal protection? No.
Bloom, even if you stick up to the poor logic of "the law is the law", it's still quite clear that in this case the law contradict other laws.