Here's one for you "rule of law" conservatives to chew on

[ribonucleic]

"New York's most dangerous sex offenders will be locked up in psychiatric centers after their prison terms end if a court determines they continue to pose a threat to the public, Gov. Eliot Spitzer said Thursday."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070301/ap_on_re_us/sex_offenders

Please note [hoping against hope here]: This is not a referendum on whether dangerous sex offenders are or are not a Bad Thing. If you want to impose mandatory life sentences without parole for a first offense, I'm not going to complain.

This is about the state giving itself the authority to keep people imprisoned after someone has already served the full sentence imposed by law.

I say that is a very Bad Thing.

[Dos Equis]

I'm looking for the liberal/conservative angle and don't see it.  Governor Eliot Spitzer, who is advocating this, is a Democrat.

[Thin Lizzy]

This is about the state giving itself the authority to keep people imprisoned after someone has already served the full sentence imposed by law.

I say that is a very Bad Thing.

No, it's not.

The confinement in the psych ward would be PART of the sentence.

You spend x amount of time in jail. Afterwards, you're evaluated and given another court date. If it's deemed that you're unfit to go back into society, you spend some time in the psych ward.

I have no problem with this.

Unless your argument is that this is somehow cruel and unusual punishment (which it's not), I don't see your case.

[ribonucleic]

That seems to be trying to have it both ways.

If the underlying crime is psychiatric in nature, they shouldn't be sentenced to prison in the first place. They should be confined to a psychiatric hospital until they're "better".

It would be more honest civics - and probably more effective law-enforcement - to just sentence them to life-without-parole in the first place. [We can let out all the non-violent drug offenders to make room for them.  ]

Given the recidivism rates, I don't have a problem with that.

[Thin Lizzy]

It would be more honest civics - and probably more effective law-enforcement - to just sentence them to life-without-parole in the first place. [We can let out all the non-violent drug offenders to make room for them.  ]

I guess we don't disagree on everything.

[Dos Equis]

I guess we don't disagree on everything.

lol.  Ribo got one right.   

[Thin Lizzy]

That seems to be trying to have it both ways.

If the underlying crime is psychiatric in nature, they shouldn't be sentenced to prison in the first place. They should be confined to a psychiatric hospital until they're "better".

Actually, having it both ways makes sense, because there is both a psychological and criminal factor involved.

Having sexual urges towards prepubescent boys and girls is a mental disorder, but that doesn't mean one has to act on these urges. Doing so is the criminal part.

[240 is Back]

spitzer was the atty general who ignored every request by the families of 9/11 victims to stop Rudy from shipping the WTC metal to china without being tested.

It was a violation of federal law of course, but Spitzer chose not to prosecute. 

Spitzer got a lot of support for his next campaign ambition, and became gov.  he wants to be prez in 2016.

[OKMike]

No, it's not.

The confinement in the psych ward would be PART of the sentence.

You spend x amount of time in jail. Afterwards, you're evaluated and given another court date. If it's deemed that you're unfit to go back into society, you spend some time in the psych ward.

I have no problem with this.

Unless your argument is that this is somehow cruel and unusual punishment (which it's not), I don't see your case.

I agree with this, as I have been with all of your latest posts Thin Lizzy.  The number of repeat offenders is astonishingly high.  We should try our hardest to protect those who cannot protect themselves, the children.  Pedophiles usually have many victims or long standing abuse of victim(s) before they are caught.  I won't feel the least bit sorry for them if they are determined to still be a dangerous risk and locked up longer.