SCOTUS rules sexually dangerous people...

[Okla-homey]

can remain locked-up indefinitely. Even after they have served their sentences.

Me likey.


Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Monday, May 17, 2010; 12:28 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" after their prison terms are complete.

The high court in a 7-2 judgment reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered "sexually dangerous."

"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," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.

President George W. Bush in 2006 signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates.

The act, named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse but declared incompetent to stand trial.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered "sexually dangerous."

But "we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact" this law, Breyer said.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan successfully argued the government's case in front of the Supreme Court. Kagan has now been nominated to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Kagan in January compared the government's power to commit sexual predators to its power to quarantine federal inmates whose sentences have expired but have a highly contagious and deadly disease.

"Would anybody say that the federal government would not have Article I power to effect that kind of public safety measure? And the exact same thing is true here. This is exactly what Congress is doing here," she said.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court's judgment, saying Congress can only pass laws that deal with the federal powers listed in the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution "expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the federal government with such a power," Thomas said.

Thomas was joined in part on his dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Chief Justice John Roberts last year granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice's order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration's appeal.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not being challenged.

State laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders also are unaffected.

The case is U.S. v. Comstock, 08-1224.

[yermom]

up next, terror suspects

oh wait...

[85Sooner]

So now just kill your victims, plead to the murder rather than the sexual offense and your out in 5.

[lexsooner]

can remain locked-up indefinitely. Even after they have served their sentences.

Me likey.

Really? It seems this case is not about whether you think sex offenders should be committed and held beyond their release dates. The US SCt. apparently analyzed just a couple of narrow issues in this case relating to the issue of whether the federal government through Congress has the constitutional right to enact the Adam Walsh law under which sex offenders may be committed to the custody of the AG even beyond the release dates of their federal sentences. It seems the dissenters have a strong argument. Since when does Congress have the right to pass such laws and make it the business of the federal prisons to hold sex offenders beyond their release dates? The sex offenses they committed are usually not related to their current federal offenses. On first blush, the responsibility of committing and holding and treating such offenders is a state's, not the fed's.

[yermom]

So now just kill your victims, plead to the murder rather than the sexual offense and your out in 5.

Why would an armed robber not be just as much of a threat upon release?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You've served your sentence for the crime, but....not so much. We just think we'll keep you locked up, anyway. haha. Get over it!

[Boarder]

The very first line of the ruling says:


Federal law allows a district court to order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date he would otherwise be released.

I can't believe the article never mentioned those two words. It seemed to be the main focus.

Here's the link to the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

[olevetonahill]

The very first line of the ruling says:



I can't believe the article never mentioned those two words. It seemed to be the main focus.

Here's the link to the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

That makes a Big Diff. But in reality aren't ALL Child Sexual Molesters a Little Off ?

Now Im not saying some guy that lays a 14 yr old that says she 18 -19-20- and Looks it, is in any way shape or form the same as some perv. that Kidnaps and Rapes a 5 yr old :eek:

[olevetonahill]

Oh and according to Most women Ive met we are ALL sexual Pervs.:hot: :D

[SicEmBaylor]

Terrible terrible decision. Once you serve your time you should be free to go. Increase mandatory sentencing for these kinds of crimes, but once you serve your time then you should be free. This is just wrong.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Terrible terrible decision. Once you serve your time you should be free to go. Increase mandatory sentencing for these kinds of crimes, but once you serve your time then you should be free. This is just wrong.no shiite, Moamar!

[Collier11]

Seems kind of dangerous to me, I have no issue with them being locked away for ever but who is to say they wont eventually attempt to use this against regular prisoners as well?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Seems to me it would have been easier and more constitutional to just make longer sentences for the freaks.

[olevetonahill]

I agree . SENTENCE a person to Life W/O
Do NOT leave it up to some bureaucrat arsehole to decide if that person is sane enough to let go AFTER they have done the Time :mad:

[Crucifax Autumn]

Exactly. If the courts hand down a 20 year sentence, then after 20 years by society's standard then they've paid their dues. If people don't like that then they need to work for stricter sentencing in the first place.

[yermom]

if they are a tard, maybe they should be in a home instead of prison anyway

[SunnySooner]

Yeah, just longer sentences sits better with me, especially as most pedophiles are notoriously hard to "rehabilitate", and are more likely to re-offend.

[GrapevineSooner]

If you do the crime, you should do the time. But not a second more than what you're sentenced for.

I thought Clarence Thomas obliterated the majority with his dissenting opinion on this.

[lexsooner]

Again, the article's headline is deceiving. The issue before the Court was not the constitutionality of holding sex offenders past their release dates. Rather, it was a federal vs. states' rights case. The Court merely ruled on a narrow issue of whether the federal Adam Walsh Act violated the Necessary and Proper Clause and Reserved Power Clause of the Constitution. Put simply, Comstock was a challenge to the fed's authority to pass this law allowing the feds to commit and detain sex offenders in federal prison. Opponents of the law argued this is a state function, and the feds exceeded their constitutional authority under these clauses by enacting the Adam Walsh Act. I might be wrong, but I seem to recall the SCOTUS already found the state commitment statutes constitutional in previous rulings.

The holding in this case seems dubious, given the seemingly lack of federal interest in committing and holding sex offenders in federal prison based on conduct, in most cases, violative of state criminal laws and unrelated to their federal offenses. It seems the federal prisoner can be committed and held by their respective state which has such a statute once his federal sentence expires.

[C&CDean]

This is wrong. Increase the penalties is what they should do.

Make the penalty a bullet behind the left ear for child molestation in severe cases, life without parole in your average run-of-the-mill molestations, and about 30-50 years on all the other stuff. It has been proven many times that these folks do not rehabilitate. They will molest again and again. If a guy has a couple violent molestations on his record he needs to be euthanized.

[Half a Hundred]

Again, the article's headline is deceiving. The issue before the Court was not the constitutionality of holding sex offenders past their release dates. Rather, it was a federal vs. states' rights case. The Court merely ruled on a narrow issue of whether the federal Adam Walsh Act violated the Necessary and Proper Clause and Reserved Power Clause of the Constitution. Put simply, Comstock was a challenge to the fed's authority to pass this law allowing the feds to commit and detain sex offenders in federal prison. Opponents of the law argued this is a state function, and the feds exceeded their constitutional authority under these clauses by enacting the Adam Walsh Act. I might be wrong, but I seem to recall the SCOTUS already found the state commitment statutes constitutional in previous rulings.

The holding in this case seems dubious, given the seemingly lack of federal interest in committing and holding sex offenders in federal prison based on conduct, in most cases, violative of state criminal laws and unrelated to their federal offenses. It seems the federal prisoner can be committed and held by their respective state which has such a statute once his federal sentence expires.

Breyer basically told them "go back and argue this on a 5th Amendment or 8th Amendment basis, and then we'll talk." This case was about Scalia/Thomas-style textualism vs modern jurisprudence. Which happens a lot, of course.

[Okla-homey]

up next, terror suspects

oh wait...

I disagree. This ruling is a refreshing acknowledgement by the Court of the practicalities of the situation. Namely, people who have an obsessive need to do the unthinkable to kids, teens and or even adults are rarely cured of their obsession and thus it is impossible to prevent future acts in pursuit satisfying their sick proclivities.

And for all the states-rightsers out there who feel this sort of thing is purely a state criminal law matter, who do you think reads the habeas writs filed by these cats when they don't get released upon completion of their sentences?

Me? I'd let them out at their end of their sentences if they would agree to leave their kaneekies and johnson in the prison hospital operating room. I'd even support buying them straws to pee through afterwards.

[Okla-homey]

This is wrong. Increase the penalties is what they should do.

Make the penalty a bullet behind the left ear for child molestation in severe cases, life without parole in your average run-of-the-mill molestations, and about 30-50 years on all the other stuff. It has been proven many times that these folks do not rehabilitate. They will molest again and again. If a guy has a couple violent molestations on his record he needs to be euthanized.

They already ruled you can't execute people who raped, but did not kill a kid.

[lexsooner]

Breyer basically told them "go back and argue this on a 5th Amendment or 8th Amendment basis, and then we'll talk." This case was about Scalia/Thomas-style textualism vs modern jurisprudence. Which happens a lot, of course.

Yes it was. Comstock almost became another messy plurality opinion of questionable precedential value. There were four separate opinions in a 7-2 decision, with only five justices joining in the majority opinion.

I don't know if the due process or cruel and unusual arguments will fly. My understanding is the federal statute is carefully tailored after the state statute(s) (Kansas maybe?) which was previously upheld by the S.Ct. Surely the opponents tried to raise procedural and substantive due process and cruel and unusual punishment as arguments in that case.

[Harry Beanbag]

Terrible terrible decision. Once you serve your time you should be free to go. Increase mandatory sentencing for these kinds of crimes, but once you serve your time then you should be free. This is just wrong.


This is the correct answer.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Terrible terrible decision. Once you serve your time you should be free to go. Increase mandatory sentencing for these kinds of crimes, but once you serve your time then you should be free. This is just wrong.

Agree with the big guy

[yermom]

Breyer basically told them "go back and argue this on a 5th Amendment or 8th Amendment basis, and then we'll talk." This case was about Scalia/Thomas-style textualism vs modern jurisprudence. Which happens a lot, of course.

and then Thomas finds a pubic hair on his Coke and no one gets anywhere

i hate it when that happens

[OklahomaTuba]

up next, terror suspects

oh wait...

good thing GITMO is closed.

oh wait... ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

So why stop at sexually dangerous people??

Why not do the same to those who kill children as well???

[yermom]

or someone that killed anyone?

as someone mentioned earlier, apparently this judgement is for tards, not just average molesterers

[OklahomaTuba]

Stoolwaters gonna need a bigger prison.

[lexsooner]

And for all the states-rightsers out there who feel this sort of thing is purely a state criminal law matter, who do you think reads the habeas writs filed by these cats when they don't get released upon completion of their sentences?

The issue was whether Congress overstepped constitutional boundaries in legislating federal authority to commit and detain the sexually dangerous in federal prison. Nobody has questioned the federal judiciary's authority to review constitutional challenges.

[Breadburner]

Stoolwaters gonna need a bigger prison.

No ruling on mis-conduct with sheep.....:D

[Half a Hundred]

and then Thomas finds a pubic hair on his Coke and no one gets anywhere

i hate it when that happens

I really thought he should have started his dissent "as a once-accused sex offender..."

[stoops the eternal pimp]

my wife says my sexual skills are pretty offensive..hopefully the courts wont listen to her

[Collier11]

and hers are quite defensive from what I hear

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Yup...Im hitting it like a blindfolded limbless boy trying to smack a pinata..

[Collier11]

She is playin defense like the Pentagon

[stoops the eternal pimp]

She is playing defense like Dwight Howard..Everytime I drive the middle, she blocks it

[Collier11]

Leaves you shooting like Robert Ford, in the back

[Scott D]

what does it really matter when prisons regularly release people who shouldn't be among the general populace because of overcrowding.

[IBleedCrimson]

dunno how to "rehabilitate" someone whose sexually attracted to small children. its like taking someone who is attracted to women, telling them its wrong, and then sending them to prison for 10 years after catching em havin sex with a woman

after that prison sentence would they magically no longer be attracted to women? of course not. they might not act on the urge, but nothing could break him from attraction to females