Court blocks release of sex offenders due out of jail

[OneBlueSky]

I still think this is very, very wrong . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/03/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has blocked the imminent release of dozens of sex offenders who have served their federal sentences after the Obama administration claimed many of them remain "sexually dangerous."

Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday ordered that the men be kept in custody while the case works its way through a federal appeals court, which had ruled as many as 77 North Carolina inmates should be released, some as early as next week.

At issue is whether the government has the power to indefinitely detain prisoners who have served their sentences but could pose a public threat upon release. Such laws are known as "civil commitments."

(snip) . . .

Four inmates brought suit against the law. They were serving sentences of up to eight years for sexual abuse of a minor for possessing child pornography. Their detention was to have ended two years ago, but corrections officials and prosecutors determined they remained a risk for further sexually deviant behavior if freed. The inmates argued such continued imprisonment violates their constitutional right of due process.

(more) . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/03/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html

[ColbertWatcher]

1. It is wrong.

This looks like it's going to be another bad ruling from the GOP that a Dem will have to rectify later on.

[davidinalameda]

2. and?

sorry if I don't get too upset about kiddie porn fans staying in jail

and 8 years for possession of kiddie porn doesn't sound that long

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

4. Yeah, I'm not seeing an issue with that

[davidinalameda]

11. we're agreeing on something

and it's not a full moon tonight?

:evilgrin:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

33. Heh...I think most people should should agree on this one

It's pretty bad, if they don't.

[davidinalameda]

34. reasonable people should

but...

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. I don't think anybody is doing 8 years for porn.

The DU post misquotes the article:

They were serving sentences of up to eight years for sexual abuse of a minor or possessing child pornography.

I'm presuming its abuse of minors that this is the larger crime...I hope.

[RoyGBiv]

8. Each is different ...

Comstock, after whom the case is named, pled guilty to receiving child pornography via a computer in 2000, was sentenced to 37 months and 3 years of supervised released, but has remained incarcerated the entire time, having been transferred to a federal institution after his state term of incarceration expired.

Thomas Matherly was convicted of one count of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 41 months plus three years supervised release.

Markis Revland was sentenced to 60 months plus three years supervised released after pleading guilty to one count of possession of child pornography.

Shane Catron was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor and abusive sexual conduct.

Marvin Vigil was sentenced to 91 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to one count of sexual abuse of a minor.


From the appellate decision:

Graydon Comstock, who filed the first of these consolidated challenges to § 4248, pled guilty to receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (2006). Six days prior to the end of his 37-month prison sentence, the Attorney General certified Comstock as a sexually dangerous person, staying his release from prison. More than two years later, Comstock remains confined in the medium security Federal Correctional Institution at Butner, North Carolina ("FCI-Butner").

The cases of Markis Revland, Thomas Matherly, and Marvin Vigil followed a similar course, with the Government certifying each man for federal commitment less than one month
before he completed his full prison term.3 In fact, the Government certified Vigil for civil commitment on the very same day that he had completed his 96-month term of imprison-
ment. Like Comstock, each of these men remains in federal custody at FCI-Butner more than two years after the expiration of his prison term.

One of the issues of this case is whether the federal government, represented by the Attorney General, should have the authority to commit an individual to indefinite incarceration after that individual has served the term of imprisonment required by state law and imposed by a state court without having been tried or convicted of any crime in a federal court.

From the US vs. Revland Case, the constitutional issues raised by those committed are that the section of the Adam Walsh law at issue here is unconstitutional because:

1) a commitment under § 4248 is a criminal proceeding and thus violates the double
jeopardy clause, the ex post facto clause, the 8th Amendment prohibition against
cruel and unusual punishment, and the 6lh Amendment right to jury trial;

2) Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause in enacting § 4248;

3) application of the clear and convincing standard of proof in a § 4248 hearing
violates due process; and

4) § 4248 violates substantive due process and equal protection under the 5th
Amendment

Also at issue is the matter of definitions, which you sort of raise. Again from the appellate decision:

The statute defines a "sexually dangerous person" to be one who "has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation and who is sexually dangerous to others," and who suffers from a severe mental illness such that he would "have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released." 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(5)-(6) (2006). However, neither "sexually violent conduct" nor "child molestation" are terms defined by the statute.2

[napoleon_in_rags]

12. Good info there, thanks.

Specifically, the definition of "sexually dangerous person" sounds good...It makes sense that somebody fitting that description shouldn't be walking around freely. Generally speaking though, I think there should be more options for after prison, like participation in mandatory programs that involve surveillance and tracking bracelets. I read the other day that the cost of incarcerating prisoners was $40,000 a year, and I wonder if there couldn't be a more cost effective way to deal with them, that keeps the community safe and doesn't extend incarceration.

[RoyGBiv]

39. Options and such ...

I tried to post this last night, but as I finished writing, DU seemed to get all wonky for awhile ...

Anyway, this is late, but I wanted to go ahead and offer it

One difficulty here beyond the constitutional questions is that the law has an "and" requirement, i.e. "severe mental illness," for the
"sexually dangerous person" categorization to be applicable. While I did not find many specific details of these individuals' mental state
either at the time of their original conviction or after their terms of incarceration by state authorities had expired, one may infer if the law
is being followed that each has been diagnosed with some sort of "severe mental illness." (One of those named in the suit was found incompetent,
which is the basis of a committal to a mental institution.) The fact that you have a guy who basically downloaded a picture of someone
underage and a guy convicted of "aggravated" sexual abuse of a minor in the same category also argues for this conclusion.

In effect, what's being done could be analogous to a commitment to a mental institution by a state authority if in fact they were being
committed by the state rather than imprisoned in a federal penitentiary. The legal issues would be far less troublesome.

This all leads to the question of what constitutes a "severe mental illness." By my reckoning, any adult who would abuse a child has
a severe mental illness by definition. Indeed, seemingly paradoxically, one critic of the law I ran across (can't remember the name at the
moment) argued this very thing: by associating the definition of "sexually dangerous person" with "mental illness" the law continues to
function in a manner that suggests a person who would rape a child is redeemable and could ever be considered "safe" in society. I won't
offer much of an opinion on that except to say I've seen far too much recidivism among child molesters for me to think a few rounds of therapy
is going to do the trick. Some people are just wired wrong. On the other hand, the reality is these people often do not even get those
rounds of therapy, so it's hard to know.

Back to the legal matters, the appellate court's decision has a great deal of discussion of other state laws that essentially do the same
thing as this federal law, and the opinion notes repeatedly that these laws, which have been upheld in numerous jurisdictions, are very tightly
wrapped with clear definitions and distinct guidelines for continued confinement beyond a prison sentence handed down by a criminal court.
There's a process in place with the federal law, but, so far, it's not being followed closely, which is one reason these men are going through
this appeals process in the first place.

Of course, the overriding thing is going to be federalism. These matters are almost always left to state jurisdiction, and what's being
claimed is basically that the federal government has no authority in the matter, e.g. double-jeopardy, due process, and whether Congress exceeded
its authority granted by interstate commerce clause. If this were a state law, as the opinion discusses, the matter would almost certainly
already have been settled.

[napoleon_in_rags]

42. My two cents:

First, I'm not really wonkish enough to intelligently comment on the legal details, but on the other hand, I work in mental health, and have worked specifically with that population who are considered at risk to offend or have offended, so I do have a thing or two to say.

My major observation is that its a super emotionally charged issue, and on these issues its always possible for some morality knight in shining armor to ride in and pass asinine policy. I remember reading here that somebody was attempting to pass legislation that equated artistic representations of minors engaged in sexual acts as child pornography. I ran this by a friend who's opinion I normally respect, and she backed it 100%. Yet if we think it through, it makes no sense at all. If a high school teacher confiscates a students drawing of Bart Simpson humping Scooby Doo, should that teacher be charged with child pornography for placing it in his desk? Alternatively, with bank robberies, we are fundamentally concerned with preventing them, secondary to that we are somewhat concerned with people who have photos of them who haven't given them to police (evidence) and we are utterly unconcerned with people who make drawings of bank robberies or artistically portray them, like in movies. Wouldn't it make sense if we were similarly focused on preventing sex crimes against children rather than artistic portrayals thereof?

This is just one example of a much bigger fact: The core issue is that its politically insane to admit that there are "shades of grey" in an issue like pedophilia. However as somebody who's been around that population, the truth is that there ARE. I remember one patient, a mentally disabled man with the mind of a child, who tended to take off his clothes if he was hot. When he was in public, he needed his caregiver to remind him that it was not appropriate to undress in public. But he was a level 3 sex offender, precisely because he took off his clothes in a park one day before he had line-of-sight caregivers, and children saw him naked, so he exposed himself to children, though in my experience he wasn't a pedophile at all - just in need of vigilant caregiving. That's just one end of a gamut that moves toward Forrest Gump who cries and says he doesn't know why he touched the kids butt, all the way over to repeat offenders who knew what they were doing, to an even deeper canto of hell, sadistic offenders who are aroused by the pain they can inflict on children rather than wanting to have sexual relations that, though damaging, are not with sadistic intent. This end of course is massively dangerous and shouldn't be in society.

So that's my experience with the population in controlled settings, but everyone I've dealt with is messed up enough to be in an institutional setting for one reason or another...What I can't tell you about is the gamut that exists in members of society who can "function normally" but fall within that population. Should they be in an institutional setting? If they've acted, yes. Or if they have reached out for help even if they have not acted, they should get support.

But the problem here is that the best way to do this, to deal with this whole gamut is through social programs ranging from support to incarceration. That patient I mentioned about IS a risk, he might expose himself to children if he doesn't have a caregiver with him in public, but he's a good hearted guy, he just needs a caregiver, support. And many people need guidance systems to help them make good decisions, and make good decisions if they are within these systems. But the problem is, to create any system that addresses this, we are talking abut social programs. And conservatives fight tooth and nail against putting money into anything that isn't punative. What they don't understand is that their model of human behavior is completely wrong: NO amount of threats will heal people of mental illnesses. That guy will take off his clothes unless he is REMINDED. He will not think about abstract consequences because that kind of thinking is the basis of a healthy mind, not the disabled or ill mind. So its an incredibly difficult political issue for that reason. But the means exist, right now, to create programs for individuals that range between support and incarceration as needs dictate, with zero recidivism. The question is if there will ever be a will at the national level to move into that kind of a model, which does raise questions of its own.

Peace

[RoyGBiv]

43. Thank you for your insights ...

I loathe these discussions usually for the reason implied in your post. It's almost impossible to talk about these issues at a mature level, which is sort of a sadly ironic twist to the whole thing.

I should take a moment to clarify that for my part studying the legal issues is something of an abstract exercise that informs the opinions I develop and re-develop over time. Because of the emotional dynamite that accompanies them -- fuse already burning -- I tend to remove myself almost to try to find a plateau of objectivity that barely even exists, and I often come off sounding wonkish because of it.

These issues are personal to me on many, often conflicting levels. I was sexually abused as a child in a way that is not often seen to be typical. I'm male, for one thing, and my abuser was a female. She was/is a sadist who has her own issues I have never bothered to attempt to understand completely, and she brought with her the Cross of Jesus as her justification for what she did.

On the other hand I tend to towards what's often seen as extreme libertarianism on sexual matters and believe at least some age of consent laws are, at best, arbitrary and lead to the wrong results. For example, the imaginary legal dividing line between 17 and 18 has developed this allure among some of those who are inclined towards the "badness" of being attracted to someone "underage," regardless of how you define it, that we have an entire sub-genre of the pornography industry dedicated to it. A cottage industry of "modeling" agents has emerged that, in essence, troll the high schools for attractive teenage girls, get them involved in what seems like genuine modeling, and then the day they turn 18 they're in a gang-bang scene and plastered all over the Internet.

And on still another hand (I have several apparently, and I'm only showing a few here), there's a matter of academic freedom. A sociologist I know who teaches a human sexuality class had to change the book he used back in the 90s because of an anti-child pornography law that was passed in his state that effectively made a book he used illegal. It had in it legitimate, controlled sociological studies of childhood sexuality with quotes from anonymous interviews of teenagers about their sex lives. It also had in it drawings (drawings!) depicting the development of genitalia in males and females from birth through old age. He rightly asked when informed by his superiors he would no longer be able to use the book whether the biology department was likewise going to be required to stop using books that had any depictions at all of human biological development and, further, whether the pre-med program would from that point forward avoid teaching about problems that developed with sex organs in children. He was mostly ignored.

Of course, it will be claimed, that these laws aren't intended to address that and shouldn't be used that way. I would counter that for a very vocal segment, this is precisely the kind of thing they are attempting to address, and that is precisely how they are used. No one with a healthy mind *wants* children abused, but far too often laws enacted under the guise of "protecting the children" do anything but. The one thing I know is that no law now or back then was on the books that protected me. There were laws then and now that would have punished her had she been reported in due course, but she wasn't. Nothing has changed in that regard no matter how many speeches "child protectors" in Congress give.

I'm getting off track a bit, I realize, but I just wanted to explore a few thoughts for a moment. I appreciate your perspective as a mental health worker. It is one far too often sorely missing from these discussions.

[napoleon_in_rags]

45. Great thoughts. One gem I want to zoom in on:

The one thing I know is that no law now or back then was on the books that protected me. There were laws then and now that would have punished her had she been reported in due course, but she wasn't. Nothing has changed in that regard no matter how many speeches "child protectors" in Congress give.

This cuts to the heart of the matter so deeply I can write about it alone. Basically, when we were receiving our sex offender specific training, they told us the numbers for the amount of sex crimes that occur vs. are reported, they put it at something like 10%, but noted many estimate its more like 5% or 3%. You are a perfect example, when you say your case is "not often seen to be typical", good choice of words, "seen" being the most operative one. I'll never forget the night in highschool I went camping and drinking with my best friend of many years, and he told me he had a secret, he had been raped when he was 7, but by a female. In his case it was a much older minor, and of course it went unreported, as I suspect almost every case of female on male rape is.

This is the real issue, the core issue. The silent pandemic of unreported sex crimes across the spectrum. Anecdotally, it see it clearly: A little more than half of the women I have known well enough for them to confide their sexual history with me reported being raped as minors, this is about 9 or 10 women. None of them reported the crimes. About 2/3rd of the rapes were committed by other minors, 1/3rd by adults, all heterosexual. Alternatively, only the CLOSEST heterosexual male friends have confided heterosexual or homosexual rape (possibly for shame reasons), only two. Gay friends slightly less, but with a higher percentage of rape as minors by non minors in my small sample.

So anyway, this is actual backdrop we live in. And that's what bothers me so much about so much of the political dialogue: Its focused on this specific, demonic perpetrator when what people confront in reality is not sexual abuse from a demonic weirdo, but from their preachers, or the cool kids at school, or somebody everybody respects. And they don't know how to respond, because the issue has been so painted in black and white that they are lost when they encounter grey, and those shades of grey look different when they are compared to each other.

Here's one example: When one ex-girlfriend of mine was 15, she attemped to lose her virginity with a rock star she was obsessed with, I can't remember but I think it was Chris Cornell (He would have been in his late 20s) from Soundgarden. She actually managed to get backstage get on him and french kiss him, but he wasn't having it or somebody intervened, so nothing happened. She lost her virginity a year later at 16, when she was raped anally and vaginally in the bathroom at a mall by a 17 year old kid.

Now if Chris Cornell had indulged this 15 year old girl, would that have been worse than anal rape in the bathroom at the mall? Hell no. Him being with a 15 year old is many shades of grey lighter than that. But it would risk scandal, the type Rob Lowe got into with his engagement with a minor, while the rape in the bathroom mall risks nothing, and nothing happened, it went unreported like all the rest. The problem here is taking our eye off the ball, which is the safety of our children, and focusing on this narrowly defined evil sex offender leaves the door open for the child to get attacked by people outside that narrow definition. We would look very suspiciously at Cornell or any other scuzzy late 20s guy with his arm around a 15 year old girl, but if she were walking down the street with her 17 year old rapist, we wouldn't give a second glance. This behavior is based on the assumption that adult men are more "dangerous" to teenage girls than hormonally charged, morally underdeveloped teenage boys, which is in itself silly. But the issue is that it affords us some comfort, the comfort of not looking at the pandemic of sex crimes happening in populations that are supposed to be innocent, supposed to be okay. Movies like Kids have attempted to open people's eyes, but people don't understand that its really happening, and that it can be anybody. I remember one female friend telling me about how she was invited to drink with the high school's celebrated football player and friends, and they gave her beer and proceeded to gang rape her. But we can't have that reality, where the school hero is a rapist. We need our clear cut movie villain rapists, weirdos and pedos, outsiders. And for that very reason she couldn't report it, because her experience was so contrary to consensus reality. People didn't want to know.

Anyway, these are only examples from one domain, part of the larger truth which is that we are denial about a much larger problem of pandemic proportions. The issue is that our model of reality as taught by a thousand movies tells us that there are bad people who do bad things, and good people who do good things. And if somebody wins the game for the school (good thing) they can't do bad thing, like a gang rape. But the reality is that the capacity to commit every crime exists in every person. We are all constantly confronted with the choice to do good or evil. Our morals, are entire society, work as ways to help us support each other, to do the right thing and make the right choices. We all support each other, every day. We all depend on each others support. As soon as our policies really catch up with these realities, this world be be a much better place.

Peace

[davidinalameda]

10. if they're only getting 8 years for abuse of a minor

the law is seriously flawed

anyone who abuses, and truly abuses, a minor sexually should be put away for a lot longer than just 8 years

I'm not talking about a 21 year old and a 16 or 17 year old; I'm talking pedophile here

[adamuu]

14. So, what is this? We're advocating indefinite detention, now?

What is happening to this place?? :mad:

[BlooInBloo]

44. Yup, that's EXACTLY what they're advocating.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

3. Some things I think should be a life sentence

Anything involving hurting kids or animals. Rape/murder should be a capital crime.

And let the drug offenders out of jail to free it up for the sociopaths.

[REP]

9. Totally agree - but fix sentencing before sentencing

I hate cases like this - it's like the Nazis marching in Skokie, where there's a fundamental right at stake but the filth of the universe is associated with it, and as the aggrieved party.

Giving one sentence at trial and then taking a mulligan after that sentence has been served is an invitation for horrendous abuse. Today it's people no one likes - rapists of children - but tomorrow, could it be political dissidents? others judged 'unfit' and 'unsafe' who are never let out of their cells?

Instead, I think there should be reform in sentencing guidelines for rapists of children and adults. Ideally, I'd like to see a 'hard 40' (40 years served before possibility of parole) for any sex crime other than statutory rape (and perhaps a few others where overzealous prosecution brands a drunk guy taking a leak a 'sex criminal' for life). No more 'Megan's lists,' no more treatig the rape of a child as though it's really just a 'bad touch' but instead what it is - rape; no more treating rapists like 5 years is enough for a 3rd conviction.

But this ex post facto re-sentencing is a lot scarier than a paroled rapist.

[adamuu]

15. QFT

Giving one sentence at trial and then taking a mulligan after that sentence has been served is an invitation for horrendous abuse. Today it's people no one likes - rapists of children - but tomorrow, could it be political dissidents? others judged 'unfit' and 'unsafe' who are never let out of their cells?

Well said.

[etherealtruth]

40. While I have NO sympathy for rapists, sexual abusers, pedophiles ....

You are absolutely correct.

[rwheeler31]

5. The Gop is more afraid of sex than death.

strange people

[emilyg]

6. If you hurt a child or critter - rot in jail.

[adamuu]

17. I hope you agree its a little more complicted than that... n/t

[davidinalameda]

35. honestly no

it shouldn't be any more complicated that that

by hurting a child, or a elderly person, you're attacking the most vulnerable members of our society

and this goes for animals as well

if anyone laid a finger on one of my pets, they'd lose that finger up their shoulder

in a civilized society, there are just certain things that one does not do

[adamuu]

38. you're right. the world is black and white. n/t

[davidinalameda]

41. when it comes to children, the elderly and animals

it is very black and white

there is NO excuse for abusing anyone of them

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. If you rape a child you should be in jail for the rest of your life, pretty black and white.

[Onceuponalife]

13. Sexual molestation or rape is one thing

but 8 years and indefinite confinement for mere possession of CP (while not physically harming any child) is outrageous. How does that constitute a "sexually dangerous" person?

[cobalt1999]

16. They are not getting my sympathy.

I think the sentences for sexual crimes (especially anything involving children) are far too light anyway.

Molest a kid, life in jail.

[adamuu]

18. that's a matter of sentencing. We're talking about indefinite incarceration, here

as in, making them stay in jail long after they've served their appointed time.
It's a matter of human rights!

[cobalt1999]

23. I know it's not constitutionally defensible.

I'm just saying I not feeling any sympathy for these guys.

They should never have been sentenced so lightly in the first place. That's what needs to be fixed.

[adamuu]

26. okay n/t

[OneBlueSky]

19. oh, if it were only so simple . . .

what about the 18-year-old guy who has consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, is found out, and is convicted of child rape? . . . is that worth life in prison? . . .

or the guy who was innocently taking a leak on his own wooded property when two kids saw him and told their parents, who had him arrested (this is a true story) . . . he was convicted of "child molestation" -- should he be in prison for the rest of his life? . . .

or the gay guy who got caught in a compromising position with a sexually aggressive 15-year-old (yes, they do exist) who initiated the contact and lied about his age? . . . should he be in prison for the rest of his life? . . .

because laws differ so much from one jurisdiction to another, and because their enforcement often equates questionable "molestation" charges with real rape, demanding the same punishment for everyone in the class is a very dangerous travesty that will grievously harm many individuals who don't deserve it . . .

[cobalt1999]

25. That's why there needs to be some leeway for judges

Some folks should be able to be minimally punished if circumstances warrant, others need to have the key thrown away.

[adamuu]

28. The public reaction (as evidenced on this thread) is visceral

Reasonable debate in the public forum is a challenge to say the least. I think this is part of the reason the founding fathers designed the judicial branch as a co-equal branch. Civil rights (including prisoner's rights) sometimes do not have popular support, as a matter of taste. That doesn't mean they aren't worthy of defense. We need to elect and appoint judges we can trust to do the right thing, in the big picture, after deliberating on all the facts in each case. It's a failsafe. Or, it's supposed to be. It failed in this instance.

[adamuu]

20. 5th: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

If you don't like it, change the law, or the sentencing guidelines.
You're not allowed to make it up as you go along! What country is this???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
“ No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .... ”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
“ nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... ”

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Flexible sentencing needs to be imposed beforehand, if it's going to be used.

Sex offenders being sentenced to "a period between eight years and life, with release being conditional on your being deemed no longer a danger to the public" at their original trial seems like quite a good idea.

Sentencing sex offenders to "eight years in prison", and then extending that period after it's up seems like a very dangerous precedent indeed.

[adamuu]

22. That reminds me of Bush's ability to label anyone an "enemy combatant"

as in, not subject to review.
"being deemed no longer a danger to the public"
By whom? Obama? what if the next president is a Republican?
Even your first proposal is a dangerous precedent as well.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. We already *have* life sentences for some sex offenders.

Provided "not less than eight years, conditional" is treated as a potential life sentence rather than as an eight year sentence when being imposed, I don't see any problem with it.

Also, of course, all sentences should be decided by courts, without any political interference.

[aikoaiko]

24. There probably are some people who qualify for civil committment after serving their time, but...

...it should require compelling evidence beyond that from the trial.

I don't know the specifics of these convicts so I won't comment.

[Lyric]

27. I have no personal sympathy for true rapists and child molesters

but I do have the ability to remove myself from a knee-jerk emotional reaction and recognize that this is very, very wrong.

The Constitution forbids this kind of treatment. If our society has a beef with child molesters and rapists getting out of jail too early, that's fine--change the laws and make a life sentences automatic for conviction of those crimes. Until then, we must respect the law and the Constitution, both of which forbid imprisonment beyond the sentence imposed by a court of law.

This is Gitmo stuff, people. We cannot put people in jail without charges beyond their sentences. That is abhorrently wrong, and the acceptance of this just because we hate the particular criminals involved will set an ugly precedent. Sex offenders first, "terrorists" like the Republican Convention protesters next, and then who?

[adamuu]

29. Related thread

Syrinx Sat Apr-04-09 04:29 AM
what do you think of the indefinite imprisonment of certain sex offenders?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5388826&mesg_id=5388826

[Vidar]

30. The Supremes circumvent due process yet again.

[varkam]

32. Seems like you'd almost be better off shooting or stabbing a kid...

than downloading a naked picture of one on the internet. At least if you shot or stabbed a child, you'd still have your due process rights.

[McCamy Taylor]

36. If they are going to label it a mental illness, then they can not put them in jail.

[Forkboy]

37. I actually think it's wrong, too. Why set a sentence if we're just going to ignore it anyways?

If we want them in for life, give them fucking life in the first place.

[dysfunctional press]

47. it IS very very VERY wrong.

but what else is new in the most hypocritical country on earth?