Supreme Court hears arguments on detaining sex offenders

[struggle4progress]

Source: LA Times

Despite concerns, most justices seem inclined to uphold a federal law permitting authorities to confine 'sexually dangerous' people after their prison terms have been completed.
By David G. Savage
January 13, 2010

Reporting from Washington - A group of dangerous sex criminals who took their case before the Supreme Court on Tuesday had one clear champion: Justice Antonin Scalia.

A staunch conservative, he has not developed new sympathy for criminals. Instead, the issue before the court was whether the Constitution gave the federal government the power to lock up offenders after they had served their prison terms.

Scalia said protecting the public against sex criminals was a matter for the states, their police and their prisons. "There is no constitutional power on the part of the federal government to protect society against sexual predators," he told U.S. Solicitor Gen. Elena Kagan.

Kagan, the Obama administration's advocate, was defending a federal law that permits prison authorities to confine "sexually dangerous" people whose prison terms have run out. She won the apparent backing of liberal Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ...




Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-sex-offender13-2010jan13,0,2108677.story

[Webster Green]

1. Through the looking glass..

Everything is upside down. I'm getting dizzy. :crazy:

[paulsby]

7. if you really study scotus cases, scalia is not surprising on this

i've seen a few decisions where he does stuff like this.

he is not as one dimensional as he is portrayed. nor are ginsberg and stevens i might add

[LuvNewcastle]

2. Why not just keep everyone past their sentence.

After all, the recidivism rate is so bad that it's virtually certain that those released will go on to commit more crimes. Druggies are going to do drugs, thieves will go back to stealing. Sure, sex crimes are horrible and people who commit them should get the maximum time in prison; but after their time is up, they should be released. The government could put restrictions on their release, like going regularly to a parole officer and a counselor, but keeping them after their time is up is not right.

[winyanstaz]

3. They are going about this ass-backwards as my sainted mom used to say...

It would be constitutional if they change the laws regarding sentencing for sex offender to be life with NO parole.
To just hold them past their sentence now is unconstitutional.
It could be easily done.

[struggle4progress]

5. A lot of different people in different circumstances are labelled "sex offenders" --

some are dangerous and might qualify as criminally insane; others are people whose crime is entirely in the eyes of the state

In some states, it is possible to land on sex offender registries for public urination. Cases are also known where Romeo-and-Juliet relations between young couples, who later married and remainded married, led to sex offender charges

And as a general rule, mandatory maximum sentences may not be in the interest of justice, since they discourage offenders from cooperating with authorities

Perhaps one problem is that our criminal justice system has no concept "guilty-but-insane" which might permit incarceration for the crime together with additional assessment of the psychiatric question, Does this person pose a continuing threat to self and others?, which under some circumstances might be an appropriate question to ask

[SkyDaddy7]

10. Thank-you! I live in Georgia and...

...folks can get put on the sexual offenders list for almost anything. What is also really bad down here is putting minorities on the list who were simply guilty of Romeo-and-Juliet relations like you described.

I am not defending sexual criminals but the definition of what constitutes a sex crime seems to have become so broad that its scary.

Anyway, thank you for your comment!

[davidpdx]

4. This essentially gives them a life sentence, without the life sentence

A court can sentence someone, they serve their time and then even after that they wouldn't be released. If you want someone to serve a life sentence, then give them that (or change the laws so that you can). Yet you have people convicted of murder who are supposedly serving "life sentences" and they are eligible for parole. It seems assbackwards to me.

[Solly Mack]

6. k/r

[ima_sinnic]

8. they need to do something besides having the community serve as ersatz jailers

"sex offender lists," which tell the exact address of anyone convicted of a "sex offense," including 18-yo guys with 16-yo girlfriends, are akin to "shunning." They imply that the person is still dangerous and that the community will now deal with him or her, as the case may be, as it sees fit. that to me is medieval. If they're still dangerous, why are they even out in society?

I once lost a real estate sale because a potential buyer with young children learned that a guy listed as a sex offender lived in the same block. I had to respect her decision, though the guy had lived quietly for years without bothering anyone, and despite the fact that it is getting harder and harder to find a neighborhood or area where one is NOT listed. When I called whoever it was to try to find out the magnitude of this guy's case, the cop agreed with me that some guys simply had underage girlfriends and others had been falsely accused out of revenge or some other motive.

They need a new category that leads to life imprisonment or, as someone suggests upthread, commitment to mental health institution for people who are truly dangerous. The "sex offender list" is bogus and puts a burden on the community to do the job of jailers, and it is unfair to those who are not really "perverts."

[Dr.Phool]

9. Just lock us all up.

We're all potential criminals. And just to be safe, keep us for life.

[pattmarty]

11. There you go. We already have the largest prison population in..........

...........the world anyway. It'd kinda be like being in the Army. And, we could learn the skills that our peculiar American style of incarceration has, like anal rape, killings, beatings, racist gang shit, you know, all the fucking fun stuff.

[n2doc]

12. Just call then Enemy Combatants n/t

[cstanleytech]

13. I am dithering about this issue.

On one hand they wanna protect the children on the other hand it is adding extra punishment beyond what they were sentenced to.
IMO i think the court should tell the government "ok, the law as it stands is not constitutional however we will give you a year to redo the law and furthermore it must include them being provided with an advocate once a year to appeal their being held"