High Court Upholds Sex Offender Law

[desflood]

May 17, 2010 - 11:17 AM | by: Lee Ross

In a 7-2 ruling penned by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court says a federal law passed by Congress to keep convicted sex offenders confined beyond the term of their prison sentences is Constitutional. The decision, however, does not foreclose the opportunity for the offenders from continuing to challenge their detention under other legal grounds.

Justice Breyer says there are sound reasons for the law adding that "The Federal Government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose."

Monday's ruling falls under the Constitution's "Necessary and Proper" Clause which Breyer offers five points of justification for upholding the law. "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 ruling does not address claims that the law violates the offenders' rights under other Constitutional protections including the 14th Amendment's guarantee to equal protection and due process.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissent. They contend the law goes beyond the powers given the federal government by the Constitution. "To be sure, protecting society from violent sexual offenders is certainly an important end," Thomas writes but continues by saying "the Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it."

Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama's selection to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the high court, argued and won the case on behalf of the government.

[EVAY]

Has Clarence Thomas EVER voted in opposition to Scalia?

[EVAY]

It is clear to me that I don't understand this ruling. I don't see how it is constitutional at all. I can understand what the majority said...I just don't see how this does not violate the judicial system in favor of...congress?...the executive?...how can this be done?

I don't want the perverts on the street, but wouldn't the answer be to lengthen the sentences from the beginning, rather than on the back side?

[Drachen]

It is clear to me that I don't understand this ruling. I don't see how it is constitutional at all. I can understand what the majority said...I just don't see how this does not violate the judicial system in favor of...congress?...the executive?...how can this be done?

I don't want the perverts on the street, but wouldn't the answer be to lengthen the sentences from the beginning, rather than on the back side?

I would have to read a lot more on this to fully understand it, but to answer your longer sentence question; I think that the reason that one would extend a sentence on the backside is if the (warden, congress, criminal judge???) thinks that this person hasn't been rehabilitated.

[FromWayDowntown]

Has Clarence Thomas EVER voted in opposition to Scalia?

Yes, but not often.

Since October Term 2006, Thomas has agreed -- at least in terms of the Court's judgment -- with Scalia (or vice-versa) on a very high percentage of cases. In fact, since OT 2006, Thomas and Scalia have disagreed in the Court's judgment less than 20 times.

In OT 2006, they disagreed in 7% of the Court's cases (which was 5 times).

In OT 2007, they disagreed about 13% of the time (6 cases)

In OT 2008, they disagreed about 9% of the time (6 cases).

To date in OT 2009, they have disagreed about 5% of the time (2 cases).

[Stringer_Bell]

I would have to read a lot more on this to fully understand it, but to answer your longer sentence question; I think that the reason that one would extend a sentence on the backside is if the (warden, congress, criminal judge???) thinks that this person hasn't been rehabilitated.

Violent sex offenders, including child rapists, are in prison to be rehabilitated? :wow

I can only imagine that the people they show on MSNBC's Lock Up are the ones this decision was made to protect the public from. There are some crazy people in prison that stay crazy for their entire stay and I'd rather not put any family/community at risk. This is certainly not as bad as we treat the Arab "looking" people that get kidnapped by militias in Afghanistan and Iraq who are handed over to the US Military as "enemy combatants" in exchange for money...these are violent sex offenders!

[Drachen]

Violent sex offenders, including child rapists, are in prison to be rehabilitated? :wow

I can only imagine that the people they show on MSNBC's Lock Up are the ones this decision was made to protect the public from. There are some crazy people in prison that stay crazy for their entire stay and I'd rather not put any family/community at risk. This is certainly not as bad as we treat the Arab "looking" people that get kidnapped by militias in Afghanistan and Iraq who are handed over to the US Military as "enemy combatants" in exchange for money...these are violent sex offenders!

I am not sure what you are insinuating here, but unless a prisoner gets Life with no possibility for parole (or death), then they are in prison for the purpose of rehabilitation. Also, this sets legal precedent. Now if they want to pass a law that states that someone jailed for smoking pot, can be kept indefinitely after their sentence is complete because the warden thinks that guy will smoke pot again, then any challenges to that law will be defeated on the grounds of this precedent.

I don't like perverts at all, and if one thinks that they need to be in jail longer, then push for longer sentences. I would even be ok with a sentence that states "20 year minimum sentence with psychological evaluations beginning in year 17 on a monthly basis. If evaluations by psychologist are not to his/her satisfaction for a minimum of 1 year then sentence extended by one year." You can change the numbers to whatever you want, as long as it is expressed up front.

[Wild Cobra]

It is clear to me that I don't understand this ruling. I don't see how it is constitutional at all. I can understand what the majority said...I just don't see how this does not violate the judicial system in favor of...congress?...the executive?...how can this be done?

I don't want the perverts on the street, but wouldn't the answer be to lengthen the sentences from the beginning, rather than on the back side?
I understand the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the ruling. What I don't understand is why we didn't get the same 7-2 vote agreeing to keep the radical Islamics in Gitmo.

Are sex offenders really more serious a threat than enemy combatants?

[admiralsnackbar]

I understand the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the ruling. What I don't understand is why we didn't get the same 7-2 vote agreeing to keep the radical Islamics in Gitmo.

Are sex offenders really more serious a threat than enemy combatants?

Because it was an unnecessary expense (financially as well as politically) when faced with the fact that we have perfectly good detention facilities stateside. But do we really need to derail this thread into a discussion of Gitmo and terruhrism?

[boutons_deux]

"why we didn't get the same 7-2 vote agreeing to keep the radical Islamics in Gitmo"

because the lawyers thought they didn't have enough/any evidence that would stand up in court.

sex offenders are convicted, most of the GITMO guys were not, will never be convicted.

WC thinks people with labels he doesn't like should be in jail without trial.

[MiamiHeat]

so why don't they do this for Murderers too?

why are these people so special?

seems like more politically correct garbage to scare the public

might as well execute them off the bat and put them out of their misery LOL

[admiralsnackbar]

so why don't they do this for Murderers too?

why are these people so special?



Look at their recidivism rates. That should tell you all you need to know.

[EVAY]

Yes, but not often.

Since October Term 2006, Thomas has agreed -- at least in terms of the Court's judgment -- with Scalia (or vice-versa) on a very high percentage of cases. In fact, since OT 2006, Thomas and Scalia have disagreed in the Court's judgment less than 20 times.

In OT 2006, they disagreed in 7% of the Court's cases (which was 5 times).

In OT 2007, they disagreed about 13% of the time (6 cases)

In OT 2008, they disagreed about 9% of the time (6 cases).

To date in OT 2009, they have disagreed about 5% of the time (2 cases).

Thank you, FWD.

I was unaware that they had EVER disagreed. I actually thought that Thomas just went along with whatever Scalia said...Thomas does not seem to have much independent thought.

The fact that he agrees with him only slightly more than 90% of the time is useful, and more independence than I would have assumed.

[EVAY]

I am not sure what you are insinuating here, but unless a prisoner gets Life with no possibility for parole (or death), then they are in prison for the purpose of rehabilitation. Also, this sets legal precedent. Now if they want to pass a law that states that someone jailed for smoking pot, can be kept indefinitely after their sentence is complete because the warden thinks that guy will smoke pot again, then any challenges to that law will be defeated on the grounds of this precedent.

I don't like perverts at all, and if one thinks that they need to be in jail longer, then push for longer sentences. I would even be ok with a sentence that states "20 year minimum sentence with psychological evaluations beginning in year 17 on a monthly basis. If evaluations by psychologist are not to his/her satisfaction for a minimum of 1 year then sentence extended by one year." You can change the numbers to whatever you want, as long as it is expressed up front.

See, this is where I came out on it. (sorry for the question being so long, I really WAS/AM confused).

It would seem to me that we would need a new law along the lines you stated above indicating that a sentence could be extended if certain conditions were unmet at the end of the sentencing period. Absent that clear statement at the beginning, it would seem to me that a citizen could claim to have 'served their time' (whatever the first sentence was), and was eligible to rejoin society, regardless of whether or not anybody liked it.

I fully accept the data on recidivism. I love keeping the pervs in jail. I simply don't understand how this fails to set precedent that is dangerous for others who are not pervs.

[doobs]

Thomas wrote the dissent, people. Not Scalia.

If anything, this represents Thomas bringing Scalia back to his view of the Necessary and Proper Clause after Scalia's out-of-character Raich concurrence in 2005. Who's leading whom?

[EVAY]

If I understand correctly that the prisoners may yet challenge the action based on a potential violation of due process, then that makes sense.

I am still surprised by this though.

[MiamiHeat]

Look at their recidivism rates. That should tell you all you need to know.

can you post them?

EDIT : i just looked on wikipedia

QUOTE -

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43% of sex offenders versus 68% of non-sex offenders.
-----------------------

so it's the opposite of what you said.

[admiralsnackbar]

can you post them?

Figures from a 1994 DOJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) study on recidivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism) indicated that compared to non-sex offender felons, a sex offender was 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime (1.3% of released non-sex offenders were later arrested for a sex crime, while 5.3% of released sex offenders were later arrested for a different sex crime).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender

[MiamiHeat]

Figures from a 1994 DOJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) study on recidivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism) indicated that compared to non-sex offender felons, a sex offender was 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime (1.3% of released non-sex offenders were later arrested for a sex crime, while 5.3% of released sex offenders were later arrested for a different sex crime).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender

this is also from that same page :

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43% of sex offenders versus 68% of non-sex offenders.

---

basically, sex offenders are less likely to commit a crime again than a non-sex offender, but when they DO commit a crime, it's 4 times more likely to be another sex crime.

so i think you were mistaken. the recidivism rates show that non-sex offenders are much more likely to commit a crime again

so why don't we do this for murderers too?

[jack sommerset]

Don't fuck kids and you will be ok.

[FromWayDowntown]

I understand the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the ruling. What I don't understand is why we didn't get the same 7-2 vote agreeing to keep the radical Islamics in Gitmo.

Are sex offenders really more serious a threat than enemy combatants?

We've bothered to convict the sex offenders; for whatever reason, we're unwilling to actually prosecute the enemy combatants.

[admiralsnackbar]

this is also from that same page :

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43% of sex offenders versus 68% of non-sex offenders.

---

basically, sex offenders are less likely to commit a crime again than a non-sex offender, but when they DO commit a crime, it's 4 times more likely to be another sex crime.

so i think you were mistaken. the recidivism rates show that non-sex offenders are much more likely to commit a crime again

so why don't we do this for murderers too?

The difference is that sex offenders repeatedly committing sex crimes suggests pathological compulsions to do so. General criminal recidivism only demonstrates a population's requisite moral ambiguity to be capable of crime, and when they do commit crime, it may well be an entirely different offense... maybe lesser, maybe greater. By the same token, however, there is belief that rehabilitation can occur (ideally speaking) if a criminal is educated to avoid circumstances or attitudes which led to their crime.

For example, most murderers aren't serial killers who get off on it, they are people who killed someone for a reason, usually personal gain or revenge. Because there are objective motives for their crime, the belief is that these reasons can be parsed and defused logically. They may well commit another crime, but it won't almost certainly be murder.

Sex offenders normally don't have a reason, per se -- they're just driven to do it over and over again. It's part of their sex drive the way fetishes are, which is to say: irrationally.

You could argue some criminals pathologically commit crimes and there's data supporting that, but it's one thing to be a thief and drug dealer with a variety of felony convictions and a serial rapist or child molester.

Hope that made sense... getting a little punchy, I think.

[MiamiHeat]

The difference is that sex offenders repeatedly committing sex crimes suggests pathological compulsions to do so. General criminal recidivism only demonstrates a population's requisite moral ambiguity to be capable of crime, and when they do commit crime, it may well be an entirely different offense... maybe lesser, maybe greater. By the same token, however, there is belief that rehabilitation can occur (ideally speaking) if a criminal is educated to avoid circumstances or attitudes which led to their crime.

For example, most murderers aren't serial killers who get off on it, they are people who killed someone for a reason, usually personal gain or revenge. Because there are objective motives for their crime, the belief is that these reasons can be parsed and defused logically. They may well commit another crime, but it won't almost certainly be murder.

Sex offenders normally don't have a reason, per se -- they're just driven to do it over and over again. It's part of their sex drive the way fetishes are, which is to say: irrationally.

You could argue some criminals pathologically commit crimes and there's data supporting that, but it's one thing to be a thief and drug dealer with a variety of felony convictions and a serial rapist or child molester.

Hope that made sense... getting a little punchy, I think.

Ah, i see what you are getting at

We could probably classify some sex offenders with a mental illness than can't we? and what's the point of throwing them in prison? they don't get rehabilitated in prison, shouldn't there be a special prison for sex offenders where they receive 24/7 treatment and stuff?

Still, I think there should be a distinction between the child molesters and the other types of sex crimes, where some are mental illnesses like pedo's, but then there's stuff like a 18 year old boyfriend and his 16-17 year old girlfriend

[Shastafarian]

Am I the only one who finds it funny Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent on this case?

[MiamiHeat]

We've bothered to convict the sex offenders; for whatever reason, we're unwilling to actually prosecute the enemy combatants.

LOL the politically correct garbage is ruining america

we need more toughness again

[FromWayDowntown]

LOL the politically correct garbage is ruining america

we need more toughness again

Really, we should just throw away the Constitution.

That would make us Chuck Norris-style, not politically correct, tough as nails badasses.

[elbamba]

Thank you, FWD.

I was unaware that they had EVER disagreed. I actually thought that Thomas just went along with whatever Scalia said...Thomas does not seem to have much independent thought.

The fact that he agrees with him only slightly more than 90% of the time is useful, and more independence than I would have assumed.

Didn't Thomas write the opinion? Would that not mean that Scalia was agreeing with him?

Thomas is a bright legal mind who is qualified to be on the Court. I think that every justice there, regardless of whether I agree with them, is qualified to sit on the Court. The solicitor general is equally qualified.

[MiamiHeat]

I am not sure what you are insinuating here, but unless a prisoner gets Life with no possibility for parole (or death), then they are in prison for the purpose of rehabilitation. Also, this sets legal precedent. Now if they want to pass a law that states that someone jailed for smoking pot, can be kept indefinitely after their sentence is complete because the warden thinks that guy will smoke pot again, then any challenges to that law will be defeated on the grounds of this precedent.



on second thought, this is a very good point.

the country is allowing their fear and hatred of child molesters to throw away the constitution of the united states.

to hold someone PAST their sentence is draconian, imo. this is fucked up.

[EVAY]

Didn't Thomas write the opinion? Would that not mean that Scalia was agreeing with him?

Thomas is a bright legal mind who is qualified to be on the Court. I think that every justice there, regardless of whether I agree with them, is qualified to sit on the Court. The solicitor general is equally qualified.

1. Yes, apparently Thomas wrote the dissent in this instance. I have read repeatedly that Scalia is the strongest (in terms of personality and force of arguments) justice on the court, and that Thomas is well known as a justice who rarely, if ever, asks a question during public hearings, and speaks little or not at all in private conferences between justices. Moreover, as indicated previously, he agrees with Scalia (the writer of the position is not necessarily the one who convinces the other...he/she may or may not be) over 90% of the time.

2. At what point did I ever indicate that I thought that Thomas should not have been voted onto the Court? I did not say that. Independent thinking is not a prerequisite for sitting on the Supreme Court.

3. I also think that most any president can name whomever they choose as long as said person is intellectually capable of understanding the issues and ruling reasonably.

4. You are, I believe, reading more into my comments about independent thought than is warranted.

[MiamiHeat]

1. Yes, apparently Thomas wrote the dissent in this instance. I have read repeatedly that Scalia is the strongest (in terms of personality and force of arguments) justice on the court, and that Thomas is well known as a justice who rarely, if ever, asks a question during public hearings, and speaks little or not at all in private conferences between justices. Moreover, as indicated previously, he agrees with Scalia (the writer of the position is not necessarily the one who convinces the other...he/she may or may not be) over 90% of the time.

2. At what point did I ever indicate that I thought that Thomas should not have been voted onto the Court? I did not say that. Independent thinking is not a prerequisite for sitting on the Supreme Court.

3. I also think that most any president can name whomever they choose as long as said person is intellectually capable of understanding the issues and ruling reasonably.

4. You are, I believe, reading more into my comments about independent thought than is warranted.

perhaps each state should open sex offender places, where they could be transferred, from the prison to the place, and be supervised and still "locked up", but they arent in prison conditions anymore and they get treatment until the state decides they can be free.

keeping them in prison past their sentence seems wrong.

[Strike]

It is clear to me that I don't understand this ruling. I don't see how it is constitutional at all. I can understand what the majority said...I just don't see how this does not violate the judicial system in favor of...congress?...the executive?...how can this be done?

I don't want the perverts on the street, but wouldn't the answer be to lengthen the sentences from the beginning, rather than on the back side?

This. I'm not sure I understand the constitutionality of keeping a state or federal inmate in prison longer than their state or federal imposed prison sentence.

[ElNono]

We've bothered to convict the sex offenders; for whatever reason, we're unwilling to actually prosecute the enemy combatants.

Well, they're muslims. And they might be radicals too. Why take a chance?

[ElNono]

on second thought, this is a very good point.

the country is allowing their fear and hatred of child molesters to throw away the constitution of the united states.

to hold someone PAST their sentence is draconian, imo. this is fucked up.

But think of the children!

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/thinkofthechildren.jpg

[word]

It is clear to me that I don't understand this ruling. I don't see how it is constitutional at all. I can understand what the majority said...I just don't see how this does not violate the judicial system in favor of...congress?...the executive?...how can this be done?

I don't want the perverts on the street, but wouldn't the answer be to lengthen the sentences from the beginning, rather than on the back side?

They've been using sex offender legislation to wipe out the consitution for years now. You think this is a questionable law you should see what they did in Alaska a few years back. They upheld the ruling of the Alaska SC that you could go back and put SO's on lifetime registration even for those who's sentence was complete and they were no longer in the system, on parole, probation or incarceration. Alaska case was argued by the now sitting chief justice of the USSC, Roberts. All states now have that law and it is federal law.

We've effectively removed ex post facto, statute of limitations and double jeopardy via sex offender legislation.

And if you're not aware, the US legal system works on 'precedent' so if they can do it to SO's, they can do it for anything else. It just hasn't happened yet, but it will.

People really don't realize, and I guess it depends on how old you are, but this country has fundamentally changed in the last 15 years. I think it is because of technology and we don't really 'have it down' of how to balance the capabilities of technology with the BoR and the Constitution. In my opinion, we keep making the wrong choices. But, when they roll out a new
child rape/murder every few months, it's easy to get people worked up, and they'll do anything, believing it will make them safer. This just in, somewhere in America, a child killer was born this year. Human nature won't change. As long as there are humans, there will be evil acts. You don't blow up the constitution of the US because a child, or anyone else, died. Sorry. Life is harsh.

I guess the question is, why did we value ex post facto, double jeopardy, or have a statute of limitations to begin with? We could start by asking those questions.

[MiamiHeat]

fuck man

1984 doesn't seem like fiction anymore, does it.

scary times ahead.

[word]

I gave up around 1990 or so, when I first started noticing things we were doing that were absolutely crazy. Oddly, about the time the cold war ended.

You'd think we'd have MORE freedom after that, but increasingly, we have less.

I have thoughts on that...but...ahhh.....

When the dike was leaking, there was no Hans Brinker to put his finger in the hole...now we're leaking all around.

Sad to watch for my old man, who is a WWII vet and jumped the Rhine with the 82nd Airborne and fought the Battle of the Bulge. I've literally seen him cry over things our country does these days...

As he once told me, 'People don't get it anymore....'

[Stringer_Bell]

Don't fuck kids and you will be ok.

This.

The term "violent sexual offenders" is used for a reason, these aren't the normal sexual assault criminals...these are the real bad fuck ups that WE as a society shouldn't have to worry about treating good or bad. I'm a pretty forgiving person, that strives to understand the motives and benefits of every action - and I don't think violent sexual offenders (child molestors spending all day carving doll houses, those convicted of rape with little remorse, etc) deserve a second chance. Their victims don't get a second chance at life without memories of trauma.

Some people are just bad apples, why can't we all agree that no written document (i.e. the Constitution) will account for all the situations we encounter? We need to use common sense and say "nah, bitch, you done fucked up big time and now you gonna pay!" I shed no tears for those that find pleasure in the tears of others.

[word]

This.

The term "violent sexual offenders" is used for a reason, these aren't the normal sexual assault criminals...

Patty Wetterling: The harm in sex-offender laws
By Patty Wetterling

Published in the Sacramento Bee, September 14, 2007

ST. JOSEPH, Minn. -- My son Jacob was kidnapped on Oct. 22, 1989. Neither his brother nor his friend saw the man's face. He was masked, he had a gun and he ordered them to run to the woods. By the time they looked back, Jacob was gone and so was the man. Since that day, I have been on a journey to find him and to stop this from ever happening to another child, another family.

But I'm worried that we're focusing so much energy on naming and shaming convicted sex offenders that we're not doing as much as we should to protect our children from other real threats.

Many states make former offenders register for life, restrict where they can live, and make their details known to the public. And yet the evidence suggests these laws may do more harm than good.

Jacob's Law was the first federal attempt to prevent convicted sex offenders from repeating their crimes after release. It was the outcome of my unwanted education in sexual violence against children.

Soon after Jacob was taken, I learned that sexual motives are usually behind child kidnapping. That was a thought totally out of my realm of consciousness. Who would do that? Who would sexually harm a child? As the search for Jacob went on, I asked law enforcement, what do you need? An investigator told me: A ready list of potential suspects, a central database of offenders convicted of sexual violence against children.

The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Sex Offender Registration Act was part of the 1994 Crime Bill signed by President Bill Clinton. Our goal was to give law enforcement a tool to help build safer communities. Back in 1990, when we first recommended registering convicted sex offenders, we were met with resistance: "You can't do that. These people have rights!" How times have changed. Few people today are concerned about the rights of sex offenders. Most now complain our laws are not tough enough.

But they might be missing some basic facts. First, in most states "sex offender" covers anyone, including juveniles, convicted of any sexual offense, including consensual teenage sex, public urination and other non-violent crimes. Second, Jacob was the exception, not the rule: more than 90 percent of sexual violence is committed by someone the child knows. And third, most shocking to me, sex offenders are less likely to re-offend than commonly thought. A Department of Justice study suggested ex-offenders have a recidivism rate of 3 percent to 5 percent within the first three years after release.

Another study found that, after 15 years, three out of four do not re-offend.

Shortly before Jacob's Law was passed, Megan Kanka was kidnapped, raped and murdered. Her parents felt it wasn't enough for law enforcement to know where sex offenders were: they thought we should all know. Maybe, if they'd known that there was a convicted sex offender living next door, their child would be alive today. Megan's Law was created to let people know when a violent offender was released into their community, so they could talk to their children and perhaps save another child from sexual violence. But the law has been expanded so that now anyone with an Internet connection can download details about almost any offender, whether or not they pose a risk, and whether or not they live nearby.

Are these policies working? Are our "get tough on sex offenders" laws having the desired effect? Human Rights Watch has taken on the challenge of looking at sex offender policy to see what parts are working and what aren't.

This week it published a 143-page report, "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States." The researchers examined whether we are building safer communities with these laws, and what issues policy-makers should consider. HRW found that many laws may not prevent sexual attacks on children, but do lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against former offenders. That makes it nearly impossible to rehabilitate those people and reintegrate them safely into their communities -- and that may actually increase the risk that they'll repeat their crime.

We need to keep sight of the goal: no more victims. We need to be realistic. Not all sex offenders are the same. Not all sex offenses are the same. We need to ask tougher questions: What can we do to help those who have offended so that they will not do it again? What are the social factors contributing to sexual violence and how can we turn things around? None of us want our loved ones to be victims of sexual violence. None of us want to be the parent or sibling or child of a sex offender. But since the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the family, sexual violence becomes personal very quickly. It affects all of us.

We need better answers. We need to fund prevention programs that stop sexual violence before it happens. We need to look at what can help those released from prison to succeed so that they don't victimize again -- and that probably means housing and jobs and treatment and community support. Given that current laws are extremely popular, taking truly effective measures may exact a high political price. But that's surely not too much to pay to prevent the kidnap, rape or murder of another child.

-----

It should be noted that Polly Klaus's father, Mark Klaus, has spoken out about sex offender laws.

They both lost their children and have federal laws named after them yet THEY don't like what is going on.

Is that not worth a listen to ?

[word]

double post

[MiamiHeat]

This.

The term "violent sexual offenders" is used for a reason, these aren't the normal sexual assault criminals...these are the real bad fuck ups that WE as a society shouldn't have to worry about treating good or bad. I'm a pretty forgiving person, that strives to understand the motives and benefits of every action - and I don't think violent sexual offenders (child molestors spending all day carving doll houses, those convicted of rape with little remorse, etc) deserve a second chance. Their victims don't get a second chance at life without memories of trauma.

Some people are just bad apples, why can't we all agree that no written document (i.e. the Constitution) will account for all the situations we encounter? We need to use common sense and say "nah, bitch, you done fucked up big time and now you gonna pay!" I shed no tears for those that find pleasure in the tears of others.

this is less about sex offenders and more about what happens to the rest of us if we allow sex offenders constitutional rights to be trampled on.

it sets a legal precedent. that's not ok. it's not about the criminals, it's about the constitution.

[ElNono]

Give it up. It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

[MiamiHeat]

give it up. It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

git 'ir done.

[Stringer_Bell]

It should be noted that Polly Klaus's father, Mark Klaus, has spoken out about sex offender laws.

They both lost their children and have federal laws named after them yet THEY don't like what is going on.

Is that not worth a listen to ?

Of course it is. There's a lot of fucked up laws and requirements for public urination and consensual teenage sex (there was a terrible case about oral sex at a party a few years back). However, I'm not afraid of this judicial ruling because I'd rather keep a violent sex offender in prison than take a chance they go out into the world and put a family in prison and potentally a life (young or old) in the ground. I don't think it's any mystery that sex offenders get raped in prison, and since a good number are shown to be abused as kids themselves which led to them abusing others, who is to say all the pent up agression won't come out when they get back on the outside where they have a little more power? That's not even taking into account the drunks that manhandle women, but that's probably something we can work on rehabilitating...although that costs money, money that can be used for other things.

I know it can be hard to have faith that judges are smart, but you need to have that faith because without it this country just cannot work. From the Surpreme Court down, mistakes are made, but I'd rather make a mistake against a person that has done wrong than a community that has no idea who/what is living next door.

Violent sex offender rights are not worth the tears of an innocent family.

[ElNono]

Violent sex offender rights are not worth the tears of an innocent family.

Let me get this straight. Because of 105 maniacs, the rest of the country now has to live with a weakened constitutional standard that could easily be extended beyond violent sexual offenders, and you think this is ok?

[Winehole23]

This is a very bad precedent, one that will almost surely be extended someday to other classes of "un-rehabilitated" convicts. A sentence is a determinate penalty; extending it at discretion when it is complete because of the type of crime involved is chickenshit.

[Winehole23]

I gave up around 1990 or so, when I first started noticing things we were doing that were absolutely crazy. Oddly, about the time the cold war ended.

You'd think we'd have MORE freedom after that, but increasingly, we have less.

I have thoughts on that...but...ahhh.....

When the dike was leaking, there was no Hans Brinker to put his finger in the hole...now we're leaking all around.

Sad to watch for my old man, who is a WWII vet and jumped the Rhine with the 82nd Airborne and fought the Battle of the Bulge. I've literally seen him cry over things our country does these days...

As he once told me, 'People don't get it anymore....'It's like waking up in Bizarro-USA. Safety trumps everything it used to mean to be American. It's fucking pathetic.

[Stringer_Bell]

Let me get this straight. Because of 105 maniacs, the rest of the country now has to live with a weakened constitutional standard that could easily be extended beyond violent sexual offenders, and you think this is ok?

We have a new set of terror laws that extend far beyond actual "terrorist activity" as we've come to define it. If no one is going to put up a fight against those broad, overreaching laws - I think protecting "the rights of violent sex offenders" is the last thing we should be concerned about.

You need to trust the system, it's the only way this country works. If you don't trust the system, this precedent is NOTHING compared to the shit that came before it and we currently live under. People say this sets things into motion, but it's nothing new. Actually, it is kind of new, in the sense that it makes us safer than any of the other crap that's been done in the name of "Security."

[Drachen]

This.

The term "violent sexual offenders" is used for a reason, these aren't the normal sexual assault criminals...these are the real bad fuck ups that WE as a society shouldn't have to worry about treating good or bad. I'm a pretty forgiving person, that strives to understand the motives and benefits of every action - and I don't think violent sexual offenders (child molestors spending all day carving doll houses, those convicted of rape with little remorse, etc) deserve a second chance. Their victims don't get a second chance at life without memories of trauma.

Some people are just bad apples, why can't we all agree that no written document (i.e. the Constitution) will account for all the situations we encounter? We need to use common sense and say "nah, bitch, you done fucked up big time and now you gonna pay!" I shed no tears for those that find pleasure in the tears of others.

Ok, I don't think you will find a single arguement here, so get to work pushing for longer (or life) sentences for these criminals. Don't give a sentence, then for whatever reason (warden doesn't like you, etc), you are not released when you finish your sentence. Once again, this ruling creates legal precendent and can now be used to justify doing the same for ANY criminal. That is how the US legal system works: statutes and case law. Case law is the more influential.

[admiralsnackbar]

We have a new set of terror laws that extend far beyond actual "terrorist activity" as we've come to define it. If no one is going to put up a fight against those broad, overreaching laws - I think protecting "the rights of violent sex offenders" is the last thing we should be concerned about.

You need to trust the system, it's the only way this country works. If you don't trust the system, this precedent is NOTHING compared to the shit that came before it and we currently live under. People say this sets things into motion, but it's nothing new. Actually, it is kind of new, in the sense that it makes us safer than any of the other crap that's been done in the name of "Security."

I agree with you emotionally and do think that sentencing for sex offenders needs to be harsher. At the same time, the notion that government knows best seems complacent and, in it's own way, un-American (Not to say "SB hates Amurrcah!" as much as that our system is designed to be argued over at every step, not accepted blindly).

I also think that defending this law's shortcomings by citing the Patriot Act's greater shortcomings is a dangerous road to travel. Our rights as citizens are finite. Pruning them back further and further will ultimately hurt the US more than releasing all sex offenders with a box of chocolates and a scrip for Viagra.

[Drachen]

We have a new set of terror laws that extend far beyond actual "terrorist activity" as we've come to define it. If no one is going to put up a fight against those broad, overreaching laws - I think protecting "the rights of violent sex offenders" is the last thing we should be concerned about.

You need to trust the system, it's the only way this country works. If you don't trust the system, this precedent is NOTHING compared to the shit that came before it and we currently live under. People say this sets things into motion, but it's nothing new. Actually, it is kind of new, in the sense that it makes us safer than any of the other crap that's been done in the name of "Security."

Your mastery of the groupthink is amazing.

[ElNono]

We have a new set of terror laws that extend far beyond actual "terrorist activity" as we've come to define it. If no one is going to put up a fight against those broad, overreaching laws - I think protecting "the rights of violent sex offenders" is the last thing we should be concerned about.

How about being concerned about both? Because the Patriot Act is shit I should stop being concerned about the DMCA or Indeterminate Civilian detention? What kind of rationale is that?


You need to trust the system, it's the only way this country works. If you don't trust the system, this precedent is NOTHING compared to the shit that came before it and we currently live under. People say this sets things into motion, but it's nothing new. Actually, it is kind of new, in the sense that it makes us safer than any of the other crap that's been done in the name of "Security."

There's 20 ways to skin a cat. If you feel like violent sex offenders sentences are not harsh enough, then by all means go ahead and advocate for harsher penalties. But this thing is very different from that. This is a carte blanche to be applied to potentially everything.

I don't mind being protected from these guys, but at what cost?

[Stringer_Bell]

Your mastery of the groupthink is amazing.

:toast

We say "oh, if they do this to the child molestors - what other kind of criminals will they do it too?" But we need to keep in mind that criminals are...wait for it...criminals! If you don't break the law, you don't have to worry about being negatively affected by this. On the same token, if you do break a law, you need to have faith the the judge will see the crime in a fair light and not be a dick. If you don't trust the judicial system, you gotta do something to make it fairer and more just. "Oh, but what about terror laws, arresting people on suspicion and holding them indefinately"...well, I think that's already a scary possibility that existed before this ruling on voilet sex offenders. I just think we should focus on the bullshit in front of us than the bullshit that might happen.

[Winehole23]

Extending prison sentences when they are already complete is bullshit, absent new crimes. The merits were wrongly decided. I'm with Thomas and Scalia on this one.

[EVAY]

Extending prison sentences when they are already complete is bullshit, absent new crimes. The merits were wrongly decided. I'm with Thomas and Scalia on this one.

me too.

[EVAY]

WH, I am assuming that the majority are not precluding prisoners from asserting that action by a warden or judge (or whomever) to keep them in jail beyond the time of their sentence is a violation of their 14th amendment rights to due process.

What I don't understand is how this can be considered okay on any grounds if it is not okay on Due Process grounds.

But I admit that I don't really understand how they could do this.

[ElNono]

Well, the court specifically said that this ruling did not address wether due process was violated by this law. I guess they'll need to challenge it under those grounds next time, and hope the court wants to take on it.

[EVAY]

Well, the court specifically said that this ruling did not address wether due process was violated by this law. I guess they'll need to challenge it under those grounds next time, and hope the court wants to take on it.

Agreed.

And you said it much more concisely than I could have, E-N.

I wish they would have said really clearly,"Please ask us about Due Process. Please!"

[Drachen]

:toast

We say "oh, if they do this to the child molestors - what other kind of criminals will they do it too?" But we need to keep in mind that criminals are...wait for it...criminals! If you don't break the law, you don't have to worry about being negatively affected by this. On the same token, if you do break a law, you need to have faith the the judge will see the crime in a fair light and not be a dick. If you don't trust the judicial system, you gotta do something to make it fairer and more just. "Oh, but what about terror laws, arresting people on suspicion and holding them indefinately"...well, I think that's already a scary possibility that existed before this ruling on voilet sex offenders. I just think we should focus on the bullshit in front of us than the bullshit that might happen.

I almost think that you don't understand what is going on. This has nothing to do with trust in the judges to sentence. You can have all of the trust you want in the judges' sentencing abilities, but the judges sentence means nothing now other than a MINIMUM time that one must stay in prison.

If a judge sentences someone for any crime to 10 years in jail, and the prisoner serves this time, is an exemplary prisoner, shows great amounts of remorse, etc, but someone doesn't like him for whatever reason, they can, at the end of that 10 years, say "Nah, not today son, maybe we will let you out next year, we'll see"


Just noticed that this ruling is almost universally (here at ST) hated, all for the same reason. Am I missing something? I know SB is the voice of dissent here (why I can't figure out), but when has it happened that people on both sides agreed on something *All for the same reason* ?

[Stringer_Bell]

Just noticed that this ruling is almost universally (here at ST) hated, all for the same reason. Am I missing something? I know SB is the voice of dissent here (why I can't figure out), but when has it happened that people on both sides agreed on something *All for the same reason* ?

There's a one or two others with no problem, but they just aren't as vocal on this particular topic. I simply don't understand why we need to worry about violent sex offenders being held indefinately. For it to be a problem, the "universal hate" for this decision must stem from an attitude of conspiracy that the government is using violent sex offenders to usher in a precedant which they can use against other criminals. And yet, no one seems to understand that they are criminals, individuals that have violated the rights and safety of others.

So yea, if people are concerned about this leading to other things, then they should have probably noticed that we already have a shit load more things to be afraid of than this because THIS is at the back end of a long slope we've been riding down. That's really all there is to it.

[Drachen]

There's a one or two others with no problem, but they just aren't as vocal on this particular topic. I simply don't understand why we need to worry about violent sex offenders being held indefinately. For it to be a problem, the "universal hate" for this decision must stem from an attitude of conspiracy that the government is using violent sex offenders to usher in a precedant which they can use against other criminals. And yet, no one seems to understand that they are criminals, individuals that have violated the rights and safety of others.

So yea, if people are concerned about this leading to other things, then they should have probably noticed that we already have a shit load more things to be afraid of than this because THIS is at the back end of a long slope we've been riding down. That's really all there is to it.

have you ever made a mistake? maybe sped in your car? is it ok to continue to punish you for it? Seems a little cruel and unusual to me.

[Stringer_Bell]

have you ever made a mistake? maybe sped in your car? is it ok to continue to punish you for it? Seems a little cruel and unusual to me.

Snowballing hypotheticals isn't going to work here, brah. Everyone can imagine an extreme situation where things are made totally cruel and unusual. We can discuss the implications of precedent all day, but it's a waste because there's tons of other doors that have been left open for years that could potentually allow terrible things to befall American citizens.

Is THIS really the straw that broke the camels back? I think not, the donkey's been quadriplegic for a while, so I'm not going to be fearful of this particular issue. Here's an example of how stupid sex laws (not even violent sex laws, but sex laws in general) are even at the state level. Enjoy!

GaUl6x1YXpg

[ElNono]

Precedent matters, wether you choose to ignore it or not. You would be hard pressed to find case decisions that don't invoke one or more citations of prior rulings. What makes specific case more troubling is that is the highest court the one setting the precedent of how the necessary and proper clause should be interpreted. This has little to do with violent sex offenders. It has everything to do with basically granting congress powers that are intrinsically delegated to the judicial, while potentially stepping over well established citizen's rights (ie:due process).

For all your bitching about 'other' shit storms out there, portions of the Patriot Act were actually challenged and stricken out, and the MCA was also challenged, and eventually resulted in the release of Gitmo prisoners, and required a review and update to address some of the unconstitutional portions of it.

I don't disagree that there are 'other doors that have been left open for years that could potentually allow terrible things to befall American citizens', but not to condemn them whenever you see those doors opened up equates to being complicit in the erosion of citizen's rights granted by the constitution. This is one of those cases.

[Drachen]

Precedent matters, wether you choose to ignore it or not. You would be hard pressed to find case decisions that don't invoke one or more citations of prior rulings. What makes specific case more troubling is that is the highest court the one setting the precedent of how the necessary and proper clause should be interpreted. This has little to do with violent sex offenders. It has everything to do with basically granting congress powers that are intrinsically delegated to the judicial, while potentially stepping over well established citizen's rights (ie:due process).

For all your bitching about 'other' shit storms out there, portions of the Patriot Act were actually challenged and stricken out, and the MCA was also challenged, and eventually resulted in the release of Gitmo prisoners, and required a review and update to address some of the unconstitutional portions of it.

I don't disagree that there are 'other doors that have been left open for years that could potentually allow terrible things to befall American citizens', but not to condemn them whenever you see those doors opened up equates to being complicit in the erosion of citizen's rights granted by the constitution. This is one of those cases.


Perfect.

[Stringer_Bell]

No problem. I'll agree with disagree. But complaining about a shit snowball rolling down the hill when it's already over halfway to the ski resort, I mean, how do people expect to stop it? You don't have to answer that, it's not a challenge or anything. I just think there's more important things happening NOW than in the hypothetical future. Time doesn't seem to be on anyone's side yo.