Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely
_
Posts: 6,651
Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely
By the CNN Wire Staff
May 17, 2010 11:23 a.m. EDT
(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to keep some sex offenders behind bars indefinitely after they have served their sentences if officials determine those inmates may prove "sexually dangerous" in the future.
"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," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority.
By the CNN Wire Staff
May 17, 2010 11:23 a.m. EDT
(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to keep some sex offenders behind bars indefinitely after they have served their sentences if officials determine those inmates may prove "sexually dangerous" in the future.
"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," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
I see where your coming from on that but too many sex offenders get out and go right back to the crime that got them there in the first place, these guys are dirt bags anyway, and bank robbers....who's robbing who ?
Godfather.
or we could stop animal testing and use these people instead?
i wonder how the catholic church would get new priests if all them are indefinitely detained?
ohhhhhhhhh right, they get away with their child rapes
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
On the one hand, it is difficult to determine what a sex offender will do, once out of the prison system. There are not many opportunities for child molestors in prision, since there are no kids in prison.
On the other hand, people have been able to live in our society after serving their sentences.
Who will be making the determination on who stays and who goes free?
...
Also, a Sex Offender could be a 19 year old with a 16 year old girlfriend. Even with the 16 year old's consent, he/she in not legally capable of authorizing consent making the 19 year old a sex offender. Yes, poor judgement on the 19 year old's part... but, we all went to high school and remember the girls who were 16 going on 26.
And YES... I understand that the letter of the law states the most dangerous offenders. I'm just wondering about the person who will determine the spirit of the law.
...
A tough call.
Hail, Hail!!!
So... you are more in line with the beliefs of someone like Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Ill, right?
Understood.
Hail, Hail!!!
Hail, Hail!!!
So why not make the stanard punishment for a serious sex crime life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. That would seem to be a better way of taking care of the re-offender problem, without telling someone after their prison term is up that they can be kept in prison for an indefinite period of time.
I'm with you on this one. Also, I wonder if they'll just keep them in prison, or if they'll have a special place for them like the mental facilities for criminals.
The truth is, I don't like this ruling really. But the other truth is, I think sex offenders' sentences are way too lenient to begin with. Hmmmm....tough call.
exactly. i don't like the idea of holding anyone indefinitely like that, what if it's a 19 year old that had sex with a 17 year old?
my earlier post wouldn't be an across the board thing, it would be for the worst ones, the violent, sadistic, repeating ones
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Cosmo you said the above quote in another thread. Please practice what you preach. Not all preists are kiddie touchers.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Yeah... it was a joke. In poor taste, i admit.
Sorry for offending your sensitivities.
Hail, Hail!!!
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
good idea.
Godfather.
So, Child Molestor/Child Rapists... not the 19 year old whose 16 year old girlfriend's dad got statutory rape convivtin, labeling him as a 'Sex Offender' in not in your Death Reach, right?
Understood.
And since I am not willing to press the plunger of a leathal dose into anyone... I would say that a nice, long stay at a maximum security facility... in the general prison population... is pretty good punishment for them.
And yes, for the worst of the rapists and molestors... 25 to life should be the penalty.
Hail, Hail!!!
Godfather.
The get the Hell they've chosen.
Hail, Hail!!!
agreed.
Godfather.
Pretty sure the article is not just about child predators, you know.
I like to err on the side of there's a chance that at least some can be rehabilitated and will not commit further crimes, and so it's a risky judgment call to leave them in prison.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Is this really true though? I'd like to see some data on how likely it is that incarcerated sex offenders will be repeat offenders after their time is served. I'd also like to see the data on the liklihood of repeat offense in the population they plan to hold indefinitely.
ya... while we'd all like to see child rapist locked away until they rot, if a government can hold people past their sentences, then really, what is the point of setting a sentence? I'd much rather see sentences and punishment increased, than having the gov't decide that it can just do what it wants anyway.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
kind of a dirty deal if you ask me. i much favor longer sentences and if the person is a model prisoner maybe knocking a few years off instead of adding years on...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Just trying to draw a little perspective here. People seem to be too quick to throw out these slogans like fish nets, which do more overall harm than good and which only serve to confuse the real issues.
Another word that is bandied about quite a lot these days is 'pedophile'. It's applied by most people to include anyone who has sex with someone under the age of 16. However, the definition of the word states that a pedophile is someone who has sex, or fantasizes about sex with pre-pubescents. A 14, 15, 16 year old isn't a pre-pubescent.
The following is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ma ... te_note-25
Age of consent manifestations
Since the 1970s, a number of demonstrations have taken place in the UK in favour of lowering the age of consent, either on the grounds of claims for children’s rights, gay liberationism or, more recently, “as a means to avoid unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) and ‘bad sex’ via education and health promotion”.[1]
Sociologist Matthew Waites, author of The age of Consent – Young People, Sexuality and Citizenship, observed that:
“By the mid-1970s the case for a lower minimum age for all was finding wider support, with questions being posed concerning the merits of lowering the legal age for male/female sexual behaviour – not only within grassroots sexual movements, but also within religious organisations and liberal intellectual circles.[2]
(…)[Contemporarily,] “significant sections of liberal opinion in the political mainstream, including prominent campaigners for children’s interests and sexual health, support at least some selective decriminalisation of sexual activity between young people under 16”.(…) More generally in academic work, particularly in Sociology, writing on sexuality from various perspectives has questioned the extent of prohibitions on sexual activity involving children.[3]
Religious groups
In April 1972, a conference of the Quakers religious group in the UK, the Society of Friends Social Responsibility Council, passed a resolution in favor of lowering the age of consent in Britain from 16 to 14.[4][5]
Soon later, in July 1972, Dr. John Robinson, Dean of Trinity College, Cambridge, and chair of the UK’s Sexual Law Reform Society, defended an age of consent of 14 in the Beckley Lecture to the Methodist Conference.[4][6]
Both of them have made the case for equality at 14, thus comprising heterosexual and homosexual relations.
The National Council for Civil Liberties
In March 1976, the UK’s National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) called for an equal age of consent of 14 in Britain. Its submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee generated extensive newspaper coverage. Albeit the report recognised the merits for the abolition of the age of consent, it proposed the retention of a prohibition upon sex below the age of 14 “as a compromise with public attitudes”:[7]
“Although it is both logical, and consistent with modern knowledge about child development, to suggest that the age of consent should be abolished, we fear that, given the present state of public attitudes on this topic, it will not be politically possible to abolish the age of consent”.[8]
Government Youth advisory
In 2000, a committee of 12 teenage girls set up to advise the UK government on youth issues recommended that the age of consent be reduced to twelve. The website from which the group was recruited also conducted a poll of 42,000 girls between 12 and 16 on the age-of-consent. 87% agreed that it should be lowered from 16.[9][10][11]
In the contemporary context, arguments for lowering the age of consent in the United Kingdom do not necessarily comprise values like individual freedom or ‘children’s rights’. Specifically, they tend to focus on a pragmatic analysis of a new situation, including puberty at earlier ages, a higher proportion of young people sexually active below the age of consent and a trend to negotiate sexual behavior in secrecy in certain age groups.[12] This new reality – combined with the present age of consent of 16 in the UK – would result in a higher incidence of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, while making it difficult for health professionals to talk about sex with youngsters below the age of consent.
Recent research by Professor Jean Golding shows that puberty is occurring earlier than in the 1970s, with an average age of menarche in girls now at 12 years and 10 months,[13] compared to the average age of 14 for puberty in general, accepted as evidence by the Policy Advisory Committee of the 1970s.[14] More surprisingly, Golding’s research have found that “one girl in six hits puberty at the age of eight”.[15][16]
According to a recent British research conducted by the Centre for Family and Household Research,[17] “an increasing proportion of young people are sexually active below the age of consent”.
Additionally, the first UK’s National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL), which collected data up to 1990, have found that a much higher proportion of young people engage in others forms of sexual activity prohibited by the law – including mutual masturbation, oral sex and others – beginning on average at the age of 14.[18]
In his book on age of consent, sociologist Matthew Waites observes that :
“Qualitative research reveals a picture of many young people negotiating sexual behaviour in a context of secrecy, constrained by power relationships while lacking confidence, resources and support”.[19][20]
He adds that “it is argued by some sexual health professionals that the age of consent should be lowered (…) to facilitate more effective support from health and education services”.[21]
Peter Tatchell, British gay activist and author, since the mid-1990s defends an equal (i.e., gay and hetero) age of consent of 14 in Britain, recovering the arguments presented in the 1970s by the NCCL and the Sexual Law Reform Society. He invokes Romeo and Juliet, aged 14 and 13, as ‘one of the greatest love stories of all time’.[22][23] In the 1990s he has received support from the homosexual direct action group Outrage.[24]
Francis Bennion, British liberal humanist also influenced by the previous historical context (although not to the point of favoring a total abolition), emphasises on the fact that children are ‘sexual beings’, concluding that this in itself makes legal prohibitions unfair.[25]
Miranda Sawyer, British journalist specialised in music and youth culture, points out that ‘we have sexual feelings from a very early age’, considering that sex is ‘natural behaviour’. She favors lowering the age of consent to 12 in the UK, while labeling the criminalisation of sexual activity under the age of 16 as ‘laughably unrealistic’.[26]