High Court Upholds Sex Offender Law

[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 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 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.

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 . 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 su ion 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 bull in front of us than the bull that might happen.

[Winehole23]

Extending prison sentences when they are already complete is bull , 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 bull , 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]

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 . 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 su ion 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 bull in front of us than the bull 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 at ude 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 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 at ude 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 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!

[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 ing about 'other' 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 uncons utional 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 cons ution. 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 ing about 'other' 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 uncons utional 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 cons ution. This is one of those cases.

Perfect.

[Stringer_Bell]

No problem. I'll agree with disagree. But complaining about a 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.