Reply With Quote
Has Clarence Thomas EVER voted in opposition to Scalia?
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 Cons utional. 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 cons utional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose."
Monday's ruling falls under the Cons ution'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 Cons utional 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 Cons ution. "To be sure, protecting society from violent sexual offenders is certainly an important end," Thomas writes but continues by saying "the Cons ution 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.
Has Clarence Thomas EVER voted in opposition to Scalia?
It is clear to me that I don't understand this ruling. I don't see how it is cons utional 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.
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).
Violent sex offenders, including child rapists, are in prison to be rehabilitated?
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.Violent sex offenders, including child rapists, are in prison to be rehabilitated?
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 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.
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?
"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.
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
Look at their recidivism rates. That should tell you all you need to know.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 05-17-2010 at 03:12 PM.
Figures from a 1994 DOJ study on 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?
Don't kids and you will be ok.
We've bothered to convict the sex offenders; for whatever reason, we're unwilling to actually prosecute the enemy combatants.
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 cir stances or at udes 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
Am I the only one who finds it funny Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent on this case?
LOL the politically correct garbage is ruining america
we need more toughness again
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
