Author Topic: 'Sexually dangerous' can be held indefinitely, Supreme Court rules  (Read 651 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Interesting outcomes.  I agree with the decision to not allow minors to be put away for life. 

'Sexually dangerous' can be held indefinitely, Supreme Court rules
Associated Press

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

The high court 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 by 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.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, 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.

In another ruling, the court said teenagers may not be locked up for life without chance of parole if they haven't killed anyone.

By a 5-4 vote, the court said the Constitution requires that young people serving life sentences must at least be considered for release.

The court ruled in the case of Terrance Graham, who was implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17. Graham, now 22, is in prison in Florida, which holds more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for crimes other than homicide.

"The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. "This the Eighth Amendment does not permit."

Roberts agreed with Kennedy and the court's four liberal justices about Graham. But Roberts said he does not believe the ruling should extend to all young offenders who are locked up for crimes other than murder; he was a "no" vote on the ruling.

Life sentences with no chance of parole are rare and harsh for juveniles tried as adults and convicted of crimes less serious than killing, although roughly three dozen states allow for the possibility of such prison terms. Just over 100 prison inmates in the United States are serving those terms, according to data compiled by opponents of the sentences.

Those inmates are in Florida and seven other states — California, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska and South Carolina — according to a Florida State University study. More than 2,000 other juveniles are serving life without parole for killing someone. Their sentences are not affected by today's decision.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100517/BREAKING/100517007/+Sexually+dangerous++can+be+held+indefinitely++Supreme+Court+rules

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: 'Sexually dangerous' can be held indefinitely, Supreme Court rules
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2010, 09:47:56 AM »
I disagree with this

if there is a legit mental reason the person should be held then fine but move him to a mental facility not a jail...

this is basically punishing a person before they commit the crime they are being punished for...very minority reportish... :-\

whats next they can give you a speeding ticket if you have a sports car b/c its deemed you will speed?

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4597
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: 'Sexually dangerous' can be held indefinitely, Supreme Court rules
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2010, 09:50:25 AM »
This is a good solution to keep repeat offenders with no remorse away from the public.
Abandon every hope...

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: 'Sexually dangerous' can be held indefinitely, Supreme Court rules
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2010, 10:00:31 AM »
This is a good solution to keep repeat offenders with no remorse away from the public.
disagree just stiffen the penalties, dont keep them in past the amount of time it was deemed to be their punishment for something they MAY do...

why does this only pertain to sexual offenders...using the logic they do it should pertain to all offenders of any crime... ::)

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4597
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: 'Sexually dangerous' can be held indefinitely, Supreme Court rules
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2010, 10:09:48 AM »
disagree just stiffen the penalties, dont keep them in past the amount of time it was deemed to be their punishment for something they MAY do...

why does this only pertain to sexual offenders...using the logic they do it should pertain to all offenders of any crime... ::)

crimes that are sexual in nature are usually deemed more abhorrent than say murder or theft.  From a public interest standpoint i don't see a problem with it provided the people held indefinitely are dangers to society.  Many other countries have sentences similar to this New Zealand for example has indefinite sentencing if someone is deemed a danger to the public i.e. serial rapist.   
Abandon every hope...

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Re: 'Sexually dangerous' can be held indefinitely, Supreme Court rules
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2010, 11:31:53 AM »
A few atatements here

1. Who is going to pay to keep these people in the jail system? at 35,000 to 50,000 per year to do so, how many states can afford to or want to pony up for this tab?

2. If a sexual assault is worthy of essentially a life sentence, then what kind of sentence should a murderer get? The idiotic belief that murder is less than sexual assault is mind boggling, yet murderers go to jail for times as low as 5 years and are freed. And as has been shown murderers often go on to murder again.

3 If sexual assault is deemed so abhorrent, then why is Barney Frank sitting congress? A known homosexual and pedophile who has molested countless young boys is promoted to congress and then to head TARP? Given all of the homosexuals and pedophiles in americas congress why are many of them not in jail for LIFE SENTENCES?

4 Given the Wall Street crooks who never go to jail, america has to come up with fairness in its judicial system. You can not have judges or the courts doling out what they "FEEL" is appropriate punishment. As it stands the guiltiest of people walk while the small or petty crimes get maximum time. Clinton perjured himself, trafficked hundreds of millions in drugs, had a couple young boys executed, was involved in massive corruption yet never spent a day in jail. Let me not even talk about Bush.... Until a king lives by and is ruled by his own edicts there will be nothing but unfairness in the land...
C

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: 'Sexually dangerous' can be held indefinitely, Supreme Court rules
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2010, 11:44:37 AM »
crimes that are sexual in nature are usually deemed more abhorrent than say murder or theft.  From a public interest standpoint i don't see a problem with it provided the people held indefinitely are dangers to society.  Many other countries have sentences similar to this New Zealand for example has indefinite sentencing if someone is deemed a danger to the public i.e. serial rapist.   
like I said if its deemed for mental reasons Im ok with it, but for simply the sake of criminal then no. They did their crime and they did their time and should be released if its deemed they could still be a threat they should have gotten a longer sentance...

basically what this is doing is saying that if its deemed they are a threat to society they will be kept longer...

How is that different then keeping a drug dealer or murderer go that are deemed still to be threats to society?

would you be in favor of that?