US Supreme Court Upholds Indefinite Confinement 745
An anonymous reader points out the news that the US Supreme Court today upheld a law that allows the federal government to keep prison inmates behind bars beyond the end of their sentences, if officials determine they may be "sexually dangerous" in the future. The case involves one Graydon Comstock, who was certified as "dangerous" six days before his 37-month federal prison term for processing child pornography was to end. The vote was 7 to 2. Three of the justices who concurred with the decision raised an objection to the broadness of the language used in the majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy.
Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I can't think of any ways this could be abused.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
As usual, people with too much power dedicating their voices to speaking out against what they hate most about themselves:
Larry Craig. [wikipedia.org]
Mark Foley. [wikipedia.org]
Roy Ashburn. [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Those three had nothing to do with this decision, this was the SCOTUS. The two minority opinion were both conservative judges.
But a nice way to bring up those losers and insinuate they had something to do with it
Think of the constitution. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an ex post facto law [fyngyrz.com]. No way around it. Making such a law is outright forbidden - explicitly - by the constitution to both the feds (congress) and the states. The fact that it's aimed at some sex offender is just used to get the foot in the door -- if you remove "sex offender" and put "murderer" or "litterbug" in there, the effect of the law is the same: To increase punishment after the fact.
SCOTUS, out of control, still. Or again. However you want to put it. There's no way to rein in these traitors to their oaths either -- the system as designed is outright broken. The constitution has zero legal teeth.
Re:Think of the constitution. (Score:5, Insightful)
I did show my work. Calder vs. Bull. Read it and weep. This issue is hugely simple. They're increasing the punishment after conviction. That's forbidden. Period. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because a judge somewhere has written that "it's ok because it's not punishment" that it actually IS ok, or that it actually ISN'T punishment. Ask the motherfucker who gets imprisoned for life without due process, ex post facto, if it's not punishment, and you'll get an accurate answer. Ask a judge, and you'll get a mouthful of shit. Ask a lawyer, and you'll get *shovelfulls* of shit.
This type of law is absolutely forbidden. Period. There's no amount of rhetoric, sophist pin-ballet, or writing of "opinion" that will change that. Pointing and screaming "sex offender" doesn't change it either, as much as the media-terrified rank and file might wish it were so. It isn't even *just* ex post facto. It's wrong on many levels - what about due process? What about the prohibition against bills of attainder? This is mind-boggling, is what it is. The fact that SCOTUS let this one go through is the clearest possible indication that they are directly and knowingly violating their oaths. Reading the opinion of people who are violating their oaths is a complete and utter waste of time. They're not doing their jobs, and that's the very nicest thing I can say about them.
Re:Think of the constitution. (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, yes. Here's the legal definition, from Calder vs. Bull:
Read #3 there. Does this law change the punishment for the crime for which the criminal was convicted? Yes, it does. Is the punishment greater than that applied at conviction? Yes, it is. Are these two changes relevant to the law annexed to the crime when committed? Yes, they are.
Also, you're talking out your ass about parole and fighting, etc. These are new violations of existing laws and they get new punishments. They are in no way increases of the sentence for the original act. But this idiocy the supreme court passed is exactly that: the time in jail is extended indefinitely because of the original crime. No new crime has been committed. That lands this clearly in ex post facto territory.
No? What are "sex offenders", then, if not a group of people? It is a classing mechanism, is it not? Can you tell if you are in the class? Yes, certainly you can. Can you tell if you're not in the class? Yes, again, easily. So you're wrong again. Must not be your day, pal.
If you aren't given the right to face your accusers and defend yourself, and your jail term is extended consequent to the fact that you committed a criminal act, which is what is happening here, then it is a due process issue. You can't just wave your hands, mutter abracadabra, and magic up a civil violation for some clown in jail, now magically "re/deeper-guilty" of being a sex offender, murderer, or litterbug. Until or unless that person commits a new crime, they have every right in the world to walk the streets. Otherwise, you're engaging in prosecuting thought crime / future crime, which is utter bullshit.
Spoken by someone whose post was almost straight-through technically wrong, point by point, that is a fabulously amusing remark. You have a nice day now. I suggest you spend it reading the constitution, and then looking up the big words.
Re:Think of the constitution. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that, in an extreme case, someone who was disturbed when they committed their initial crime but still found competent for trial could emerge from prison even more disturbed. They would then present a danger to society, possibly enough so that a separate civil commitment could be ordered. Each piece individually is allowed under law and even understandable, but the combination and the timing of this reek of a system that is eager to call everything abnormal a 'mental disease'. But, Title 18 section 4248 reads as legal, and does not appear unconstitutional, and the court found it such. That Title 18 Chapter 313 has existed this long seems to be the primary reason the Court allowed it to stand. Taken as part of that entire chapter, section 4248 does not seem that much further of a step for federal law.
Re:And nearly contradict themselves on the same da (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And nearly contradict themselves on the same da (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a juvenile. That's an important distinction.
There are ways to get life without parole if you are an adult and you do enough bad things.
Regarding the other case, I have to side with the SCOTUS minority. If you want to keep child molesters locked away for ever, then pass laws that require longer sentences, rather than sentencing them to ten years then holding them forever.
And for god's sake, if you skip a safety regulation and 29 coal miners die, be prepared to be charged with manslaughter, at the very least. The day a CEO of a coal company who causes 29 death does the same amount of time as a 19 year-old caught with a pound of reefer, then we can pretend we have a country based on the rule of law and not the rule of money.
So big deal, the United States Supreme Court really showed those horrible child molesters. That's an easy call. Do something hard and apply the same set of rules to the rich and powerful who break laws.
Re:And nearly contradict themselves on the same da (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention the question of whether the Federal government has any authority to do that in a non-military context. Murder is embodied in state law. As is rape. Where does the Federal government (and SCOTUS) think it gets the authority to do this? There is nothing in the Constitution that would bestow this kind of power on them. And that includes the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses.
All in all, I think it is pretty damned clear that the majority made yet another BAD decision, much like some of the other bad decisions it has made in the last 10-15 years. I think it's time for new blood in the courts. And I don't mean Kagan; she pushed this law when the court last reviewed it. She would be my last choice for Supreme.
--
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing in this decision or in the law says that molesters will be imprisoned forever without trial. Nothing at all.
Re:And nearly contradict themselves on the same da (Score:5, Informative)
Please do teach me the math to calculate that 10 (trial) + forever (no trial) - 10 (trial) != forever(no trial).
If someone can get condemned to 10y by a trial, and kept locked up indefinitely, that's indefinite lock-up without trial.
Re:And nearly contradict themselves on the same da (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the Federal government has no authority to do this. Whether it says they will be imprisoned forever or not. It's not in their jurisdiction.
Second, "clear and convincing evidence" is FAR lower than the normal standard for incarceration, which is "beyond reasonable doubt". So yeah, it WOULD give the Federal government the ability to incarcerate someone forever, without a proper trial. At least, any kind of "trial" that would be accepted in any other situation.
Third, in the very poster-child case mentioned in the article, the government would have it apply to a "receiver" of child pornography. Note here an important distinction: you may think the person is weird and deranged, but study after study have shown no link between mere "receivers" of child pornography, and actual real-life crimes. The man was not convicted for any crime other than receiving child pornography. He molested no children. In fact, there is ample evidence to show that rather than inciting crime, pornography is cathartic, and that people who might otherwise commit crimes will otherwise take out their obsessions or aggressions on the pornography, rather than real people.
To recap: most "receivers" of child pornography are NOT people who are dangerous to society or children. No matter what the government would have you believe.
Do not misunderstand; I am NOT saying that people who create child pornography are doing mankind a favor. What I am saying is that psychologically, most people who "get turned on" by such stuff would rather deal with it on their own, rather than commit acts they know are completely unacceptable to society.
Further, technically YOU are probably a "reciever" of child pornography, in your emails or internet popups. Whether you want to be or not. That stuff gets stored in your system logs and browser cache, where they can be found later by the authorities. Sure, that doesn't mean you are keeping a collection specifically of child pornography... but it DOES mean that you are in violation of the same laws. Hmmm... maybe we should lock YOU up for 10 years, then change our minds and lock you up for life! What do you think? Is that fair?
No matter how much you think this is "for the children", the fact is that the Fourth Circuit judged properly, and SCOTUS did not. Which just adds to the number of exceedingly bad decisions they have made in the last decade and a half. And even if it were not a bad decision, the Federal government does not have the authority to make it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen you on /. a few times now. Your posts very rarely make any sense, and this one was especially incoherent.
Posts with citations that contradict your assertions already exist in this thread, especially this guy [slashdot.org] who posted before the poster you responded to.
I guess what I'm saying is, learn how to argue better if you're going to continue doing it.
Re:And nearly contradict themselves on the same da (Score:4, Informative)
Scope (Score:5, Interesting)
Reading about this today, I found that the scope of this particular decision is less scary than I initially assumed -- it's limited to prisoners who meet a standard as being "sexually dangerous", so they're not just being held without due process. Apparently this applies to about 100 prisoners nationwide.
The trouble here is that we, as a society, have real trouble in applying common sense in our legal system. You start with an obvious good thing (keeping violent sex offenders behind bars) and it grows into something completely different -- consider the way the term "sex offender" has been distorted. Once you start allowing this sort of action, where's the protection that keeps it from growing into something else?
Are we going to start seeing 18 year-olds locked up forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than them? It sounds silly, but we already routinely label this a "sex offense". Will taking a drunken piss in an alley set you up for decades in prison? Again, common sense says that's ridiculous but again, it can already get you labeled as a sex offender.
Until we figure out a way to legislate in a way that applies some degree of common sense, this sort of thing just can't be allowed.
The real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem is the sentencing guidelines. A true child rapist should go away for life in prison. Then this wouldn't be an issue. I am not talking about statutory rapists, I mean the ones who really prey on children.
Crazy talk! (Score:5, Insightful)
Woah, my hypocritical bullshit detector just flashed defcon 5...
You should a child rapist be put in prison for any longer than any other sort of rapist? How is it any more acceptable to rape a 21 year old woman than it is a child? This sounds like a typical 'OMG, we must protect the children' hysteria that clouds and distorts this sort of discussion. I don't care if you rape a 3 year old girl or a 35 year old man who is a master of 14 martial arts, a persons degree of ability to defend themselves does not mitigate the crime.
Re:Crazy talk! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're actually right. Any rapist should go away for life.
Re:Crazy talk! (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree only if the definition of rape was tightened up a bit from what it is currently. If we're talking about clear-cut acts of violence then sure, just don't count, "I didn't really want to but I didn't want to say no either because then he might have broken up with me" as rape.
Re:Crazy talk! (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I was astounded at how many women, in order to protect their "reputation" (meaning: with fellow sorority sisters and dorm-mates) would deny consent after the fact. It happened... well, not all the time, but far too often. And while I hate to use the word "appalled" more than once on any Slashdot subject, that is one situation in which I truly was. Those young women cared only about themselves and their perceived "reputation" (which often was nowhere near what they thought it was anyway), and gave not the slightest damn that they could totally ruin the young man for the rest of his life with their accusations.
Oh, yeah. That's "rape". But the other way around.
Re:Crazy talk! (Score:4, Informative)
Ummm, see Duke Lacrosse fiasco, and several other times when rape isn't violent and consent believed to have been given. A 3 year old girl is in no way capable of giving consent whereas a 35 year old man could and then after the fact change his mind and claim consent wasn't given. So unless you are prepared to get a signed notarized affidavit of consent prior to every sexual encounter be careful how much you wish to place all rapists in the same boat. See also viral nature of child molestation, 35 yr men who are raped rarely run around raping others. Children who are molested can become molesters as adults.
Re:Crazy talk! (Score:5, Insightful)
And, for that matter, what makes rape any worse than any other violation of the body? What makes having sex with an unwilling person worse than, say, breaking someone's kneecaps?
Yes, rape is a bad crime, but some people treat it like it's worse than murder. In which case I can't help asking "would it have been better if the rapist had killed the victim instead?"
IMO, we need to get past the monotheistic revenge based justice system, and start examining why violence happens and address that. Both at a society level and a perosnal level. How can we best prevent Joe Perp from becoming Joe Recidivist. Sure, locking him away for life is one option, but far from the best one. I fear that all it teaches other potential perpetrators is "don't get caught".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"A true child rapist should go away for life in prison. "
They should be permanently confined in an insane asylum instead. That isn't "punishment", and can last a lifetime without fuss. There is greater scope for controlling them, such as involuntary administration of drugs to make them docile and convenient for staff to handle.
Society doesn't need such people, it's inconvenient to kill them, but no one can quibble with a "medical" solution.
Re:The real problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you in theory - that a custody meant to protect society at large should be distinguished from a punitive one. But we don't really agree that incarceration is meant to be punitive: we think it might be rehabilitative, or protective, as well. Prisons have become places that have slid back into pre-modern forms of punishment, meted out by other prisoners rather than by the state. Perhaps the anxiety about distinguishing between punitive and protective incarceration after conviction is about a reluctance to recognize that other prisoners are now effectively delegated by the state to punish each other.
Re:The real problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad we closed nearly all of the "insane asylums" in the 1970's as being impossibly sadistic and cruel. The people were dumped out on the streets and became the homeless population. But we stopped being so sadistic and cruel as to have these people confined against their will.
Yeah, I am not a big fan of closing those places. We now have mostly nice hospitals with Occupational Therapy making pots and collages for bored housewives with depression. The number of places where you can put someone like John Hinkley today is pretty much less than 10. The number of slots is extremely limited.
I believe the reason the scope of possible treatment for really mentally ill people in prison is so limited is to prevent the reoccurence of any sort of state hospital system as existed before the 1970's. There were plenty of places then, and plenty of people filling these places up. What happened to all of these people? Well, they are in regular prisons and they are on the streets today. There is nowhere else.
The will of the people decided this matter back in the 1970s and nobody seems to want to change the state of things now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real problem (Score:4, Interesting)
If only it were that simple. What if the "child" that was "raped" is a Lolita-type that deliberately seduces and encourages older men into her bed? Seems to me they should both be in jail..... or better yet, allow an exception for sex that is consensual, as when Jerry Lee Lewis had sex with a 14 year old (whom he eventually married).
POINT: The world is not black-and-white. Neither should be the punishments. A life sentence for doing what Nature designed us to do (procreate like rabbits/ rut like Romeo & Juliet) is ridiculous and foolish. I'd say 10 years top.... 20 if its a repeat offender. But not life.
Age of consent (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't that what the Age of consent [wikipedia.org] is for? What you need to strive is to lower this age in the States.
By definition Pedophilia [wikipedia.org] means under 14, the middle range above 14 would be Ephebophilia [wikipedia.org], which is the "lolita" type.
I assume this is a taboo issue there.
Re:The real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The real problem (Score:5, Informative)
>>>most 14-year-olds are, in fact, children.
"In fact" they are not. Children are scientifically defined as the juvenile *sterile* member of a species. 14 year olds are not sterile..... they have become adults in the biological and natural sense.
Now if you want to argue a 14 year old is an inexperienced human being, I will concur with that. But I won't call him or her a child. It's simply not true.
Re:The real problem (Score:4, Informative)
Can you provide some citations for that? It's always been my experience that it costs far, FAR more to execute someone than to imprison them for life when you take into account that the appeals process is expensive.
"sexually dangerous" (Score:4, Informative)
This definition includes people who were NEVER ACCUSED OF HAVING ACTUAL SEX with anyone. And could be applied to anyone convicted of any crime at termination of sentence.
NOT good.
Also the same day they limit life without parole (Score:4, Funny)
The other important point here is that today they limited the application of life without parole, saying it was cruel and unusual punishment to apply to a juvenile who had not committed a murder. This bring America closer in line with with the human rights standards of the Western World.
Re:Scope (Score:5, Insightful)
Due process means appearing before a jury of your peers, or at least before a judge, with an opportunity to face your accuser and to defend yourself - not that some bureaucrat makes out a report and then another bureaucrat throws away the key to your cell.
Furthermore, they're not making the decision to confine on the basis of evidence, they're making it on the basic of assumptions and one person's judgment.
If you aren't scared, you should be. Very scared.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it won't be un-repealed when the wars end
I'm sorry; I don't quite follow you.
We've always been at war with Eastasia. It's silly to imply that the war will ever end.
Re:Scope (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you start allowing this sort of action, where's the protection that keeps it from growing into something else?
Are we going to start seeing 18 year-olds locked up forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than them?
Undoubtedly. If we can put two 16-year-olds in prison for taping themselves having sex (and not sharing with anyone) as "manufacturers of child pornography", and put at this point hundreds of teenagers on the "sex offender list" for texting each other their private parts, then yes, it is likely that with this decision in the near future we will see teenagers go to prison forever, because they defied their teacher, the cops, or just some prude who couldn't get laid if he/she tried.
Until we figure out a way to legislate in a way that applies some degree of common sense, this sort of thing just can't be allowed.
Well, evidently not only is it allowed, but our highest court agrees also. So I guess you're on the losing side of the issue. Before someone goes through your cache and locates a thumbnail, which has a 17 +364 day old doing naughty things and thus puts you in prison for life, you better get with the program. Cause in a dictatorship of the bureaucracy, you'll find that dissent of any sort will result in the entire collection of laws to be applied to you. And at this point, we've got enough laws to make anyone a criminal, as long as you try hard enough.
That is the real problem (Score:5, Informative)
If it can be over applied, it almost certainly will be. As a great example look at California's "3 strikes" law. It was sold as a law that would get the worst repeat offenders gone. After all, if you've committed 3 serious crimes, it is clear jail isn't doing anything in terms of rehabilitation or deterrence, it is just time to remove you so you can't commit crimes. Sounds good... Except that it gets applied to all sorts of things. There is a guy who's in prison for life with his 3rd strike being a shoplifting charge. As such the jails there are extremely overcrowded and the federal government is having to step in and force them to release people because the conditions are so bad.
Well, that is just what happens. Also, it tends to happen even worse whenever sex is involved. Sex crimes have the ability to cause a total brain shutdown in much of the population. You say "sex offender" and people automatically think "Forcible rape of a young child." So any proposed law that is anything but the toughest possible on "sex offenders" gets outrage as a response because you aren't "Protecting the children."
So yes, such a thing can and will be over applied.
Re:That is the real problem (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a guy who's in prison for life with his 3rd strike being a shoplifting charge.
Furthermore, it has the effect of making life more dangerous for cops and the law-abiding. It turns people who are at risk of being busted for a third strike into caged animals. Someone who has just commited shoplifting and sees the store security coming after him is a lot more likely to shot or knife them, or anyone nearby in order to make his get away. A 2-striker who gets pulled over with a joint or even just a crack-pipe in his car is now a lot more likely to pull an OJ and try to make a break for it, endangering everybody else on the road with him.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions and the guys driving the paver are blind lead-foots.
Re:Scope (Score:4, Insightful)
"Once you start allowing this sort of action, where's the protection that keeps it from growing into something else?"
Well, you could look at the rest of the world and see if anybody has tried the experiment for you.
Canada, the UK and Denmark all have dangerous offender laws that allow indefinite confinement. None of them has anything like the prison population the US does, or locks up 18 year olds forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than they are (I don't believe that's even mildly illegal in any of the three).
Re:Scope (Score:4, Funny)
Are we going to start seeing 18 year-olds locked up forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than them?
Good question. I'd say this will make most horny 18 year olds think twice about their choices.
On a related note, I'd say the cougar lobby considers this to be a win.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, as the parent alluded to, there is a tendency for "scope creep" in any exception to any law.
Secondly, it's quite obvious that the justices were trying to acknowledge a deficiency in the current laws, however to hand down a verdict like this is a great example of the "slippery slope".. Ultimately, this gives a lot of power to government to do stuff like setup "Gitmo"s for it's own citizens that some official declares to be "dangerou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dangerous? Maybe. The problem is that no elected official wants to be the one standing in front of the camera justifying why some guy with a known history of raping and killing little girls (or boys) was let out of jail and given the opportunity to do it again.
Elected officials are a little concerned about making such an appearance, because the news media is going to go after them and bring it out come election time. This pretty much means that letting someone like this out ends the career of some politic
Re:Scope (Score:4, Insightful)
Allowing the victim to dictate the sentencing of a perpetrator is a fundamental issue that runs contrary to every aspect of modern western justice.
There are discussions of this ranging back to Socrates and Plato, Voltaire, Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson.
They all agree that this is not a suitable punishment. In the animal kingdom, it is not uncommon for instinct to dictate that an animal who has set foot on your "turf" should be viscerally executed with your bare hands. Obviously this is an extreme example, but it lays the foundation for the deleterious effect that this argument would have on the justice system as a whole.
Additionally, the concept of "absolute safety" in society is another significant negative force on personal liberty during the last several decades. The concept that everyone has a "right" to complete safety at all times that trumps various other long-held freedoms is a serious issue that can't be dismissed.
Just like little Polly's father is very angry at the crime, the perpetrator likely has a family who is equally as disturbed at his incarceration. While you can easily dehumanize him by calling him a "monster" or whatever other phrase suits your emotional decorum, you are making an enormous ontological jump to convince yourself that your view is justified.
We have a justice system that dictates punishment, partially for punitive and partially for rehabilitative purposes. Currently, the system in the United States hands out nearly 4-times the prison sentence for this crime as any other western democracy and, yet, we still have the highest rates of all of these victimizing crimes.
Perhaps we should stop to think about what it is in the vengeful attitude with which we approach justice that causes our society to have such high rates of violence and victimization and look abroad. Sweden has one of the lowest rates of child sexual assault in the world. They also adopt a very permissive attitude regarding teen sex and homosexuality and have relatively short sentences, focused on rehabilitation (which appears to be very successful for them). There is no sex offender registry. In fact, a private group set one up last year, and there was a massive public protest in opposition to it. Police forced the owner to take the site down immediately as it violates Swedish privacy laws.
It's interesting to look at countries that adopt a different posture about these issues and try to educate ourselves. Perhaps we might wonder why we have such high rates of violence and why we have such high rates of victimization and then peer at our reactions to those things and question if they are, indeed, legitimate or useful and not simply our slobbering animal instinct lashing out at things we don't understand, or decide are "gross".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Scope (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading about this today, I found that the scope of this particular decision is less scary than I initially assumed -- it's limited to prisoners who meet a standard as being "sexually dangerous", so they're not just being held without due process. Apparently this applies to about 100 prisoners nationwide.
One of whom had only a 37 month sentence for possession of child pornography. No mention that he had ever touched a child. Extending a sentence from 37 months to life is pretty severe. The potential for abuse of this process is staggering. Who gets to decide if someone is "sexually dangerous"? A doctor? What are the rules of evidence and due process requirements for the forum in which that determination is made? Does someone even have to be convicted of a crime for them to be labelled as "sexually dangerous"? This is by far the most frightening decision I've seen the SCOTUS hand down in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reading about this today, I found that the scope of this particular decision is less scary than I initially assumed -- it's limited to prisoners who meet a standard as being "sexually dangerous", so they're not just being held without due process. Apparently this applies to about 100 prisoners nationwide.
The thing is with governments, if you give them an inch they take a mile. And when they overstep their authority, there's never, ever, ever, even the tiniest little bit of repercussion for it. I would fee
Re:Scope (Score:5, Funny)
Actually it is even more limited than that - they have to be mentally ill as well as "sexually dangerous".
Another obvious issue with this ruling is that "Sexually Dangerous" just sounds like a Prince song.
Re:Scope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scope (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like not anyone goes to Guantanamo--they also have to be "enemy combatants." Only "enemy combatants" are sent to Guantanamo, right? So it must be OK.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The U.S. government has a history of violence. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's NOT limited.
The U.S. government believes it can imprison, kidnap, torture, or kill anyone, anywhere. The only necessary condition is that the government apply a label to that person. Sample labels: Enemy combatant. Possible terrorist. Sexually dangerous. Other labels that may be secret. Sometimes no proof is considered necessary.
The U.S. government believes it can spy on anyone, anywhere, and spends more taxpayer money on spying than any government anywhere.
The U.S. government believes it can lie to taxpayers.
Some departments of the U.S. government believe the government can kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason, or no reason at all, or no reason a normal citizen would consider a real reason.
The U.S. government has killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein, by a factor of more than 10. The U.S. government called Saddam Hussein cruel.
The U.S. government has a 6 times higher percentage of its citizens in prison than any country anywhere.
The U.S. government has more debt than any country anywhere, in the entire history of the world.
The U.S. government has invaded or bombed more than 24 countries since the end of the 2nd world war.
The U.S. government believes it can interfere with the governments of other countries. For example, in 1953 the U.S. government removed democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh [wikipedia.org].
The government has engaged in violent activity toward another country each year, except one, for more than the last 100 years [wikipedia.org]. Apparently all of that violence was to increase private profit.
Re:The U.S. government has a history of violence. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mature, reasonable, moral, and an excellent way to get a reputation for being the light of the world. I feel so much better now.
Re:Scope (Score:5, Insightful)
Who defines the criteria, though?
Apparently, based on TFA, the possession of child pornography is enough to be classified as "sexually dangerous".
I fear that this opens up for classifying anyone with a sex-related conviction as "sexually dangerous", and anyonen with a deviance or kink as "mentally ill". I.e. a potential for becoming a rubber stamp for extending incarceration beyond the sentencing for anyone who the voters consider especially disgusting.
Re:Scope (Score:5, Insightful)
OK maybe I'm dense but this law is by my reading aimed at person's who are mentally incompetent or legally insane such that they are incapable of standing trial, in the case of Graydon Comstock, he served his sentence of 37 months for receiving child pornography, seems to me that if 1. he's mentally capable? of standing trial and serving his sentence that the law does not apply to him and secondly how does receiving illegal pornography make one sexually dangerous? So it's obvious to me they are not only applying the law outside it's bounds and we can't rely on the courts to correct the matter so any reliance on limitations is wishful thinking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because no one has ever been classified mentally ill for the sake of someone political ambition..
I'm not strictly trying to be snarky here, but when you have cases already in which prosecutors refuse to have old evidence tested for DNA because they 'know' they have the right man on death row (looking at you Texas)... this too will be abused.... and now its the law of the land.
Re:Scope (Score:5, Funny)
No, we only imprison the insane for four years, eight if they're re-elected.
Re:Scope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scope (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but do they meet the criteria for criminal insanity or only the criteria for psychological insanity?
Re:Scope (Score:4, Interesting)
Insanity is a legal defense, not a crime
Re:Scope (Score:4, Informative)
Insanity is a legal defense, not a crime
We can pass a law to fix, er, change that.
Re:Scope (Score:5, Insightful)
Are the politicians insane or the people who keep electing them?
Someone offers me a job where every weekend is a long weekend, everybody kisses your ass, you get corporations handing you big sacks full of cash, a six-figure salary and then great health care benefits and a pension after 6 years? Oh yeah, I'm gonna take that job.
Top of all that, you get a fat allowance for an office and staff, which means you can hire an exotic dancer/masseuse as your secretary.
The only bad part is you have to wear a suit and tie. No casual fridays in the Senate. I'd rather be a judge, so I get to wear the black dress and I can be naked under it, like Clarence Thomas. I don't know what it is about Clarence, but for some reason, I get the feeling that he goes commando under the robes. And who could blame him?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Some comments are their own replies.
Re:Scope (Score:5, Informative)
There's a well-known case about a psychologist (sorry forget his name... it was back in the 60s), who deliberately acted insane to get himself committed. He wanted to see what it was really like to live in the asylum. Problem: When he decided his observations were done, and he tried to prove he was "sane" to the staff and just doing an experiment, nobody listened to him. They refused to let him out.
No government, no corporation, no person should have that kind of power. There needs to be a point where that power ends (prison term has ended), and the person is allowed to be free, rather than enslaved for life.
BTW:
The psychologist did eventually get out, but it required a lawsuit and the backing of his university; else he probably would have died there. A sane man trapped inside a flawed system.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe I recall reading that the OSS did this during WWII to people who were a security risk and whom they felt couldn't be trusted not to blab. I can't find a source for this though so it may be fiction or rumour.
Re:Scope (Score:5, Informative)
sounds a little like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment [wikipedia.org]
Re:Scope (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you thinking of the Nellie Bly [wikipedia.org] case? Or did someone decide to try the experiment again?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
there was more to that story, his name was david rosenhan. one of the main contributing factors into him doing it in the first place was that he listened to a lecture by r.d.laing who was very blatantly accusing then modern psychology of being a massive group of charlatans. it has since become known as the rosenhan experiment because once he (and all of the other people he convinced into doing it) were released, he wrote a paper detailing how r.d.laing might have been correct in some aspects. so here is the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and yes, for the lurking /. hivemind pedantic self proclaimed clerisy types, i know i didnt us any proper capitalization and hardly any correct punctuation.
you also misspelled 'use'~
Re:Scope (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I had that argument with someone over the weekend. "Why should people on the watch list be allowed to buy guns?", my response "Why should the Attorney General be able to take away my rights with no due process?" The 5th amendment says that we can't be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law. Somehow I don't think that was meant to cover "The AG takes away your rights but you can appeal his determination if you have the financial resources to do so."
Ah, but it's for the children, so that's ok. Child molestation, DWI, terrorism, etc. All boogieman exploited by those seeking to whittle away at our rights.
Re:Scope (Score:4, Informative)
36 convictions for child molestation, all overturned.
Opps, sorry, only 34 where overturned. The other 2 died in prison awaiting their retrial. The last guy was released after spending 20 years in jail for something he didn't do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Part of the reason that they're dangerous when they get out is that prisons in large measure devolve into clan-based behaviors, though gangs are what form. A huge portion of them, maybe the majority, are racist, and a lot of people in for the first or second time join them just for safety. This isn't an easily-handled problem, either; while inmates have strongly-restricted rights, the guards are generally fine with letting them talk with whomever they please as long as they're not causing problems, becaus
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because, in America, sex = bad, violence = groovy, baby!
Why else do you think we talk about Janet Jackson's nipple showing being "immoral" while we're blowing the fuck out of innocent civilians?
Indefinite? (Score:5, Interesting)
My biggest problem is this: What other crimes can criminals commit deeming them too dangerous for society? What's the point of a fixed length sentence at all for individuals who are likely to be dangerous after release? What about murderers and/or serial rapists who show no remorse or signs of rehabilitation?
What about repeat domestic abusers?
Drunk drivers(have you seen recidivism rates?)?
What about repeat moving violators?
It's a slippery slope.
Re:Indefinite? (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's from drug laws. Toss out all the drug convictions and our prisons would be less than half full.
Niemöller comes to mind (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how liberty dies. First they claim that terrorists don't have rights, then they claim sex offenders don't have rights. Before you know it, nobody will have any rights.
Re:Niemöller comes to mind (Score:5, Funny)
Here in the state of Denial, we still have plenty of rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
which says that juveniles cannot get life sentences for nonhomicides.
Unless they looked at kiddie porn, then they get a 3 year sentence that they serve for the rest of their life.
ColdGate (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes sense to me. If the crime deserves a longer sentence, then impose a longer sentence. But let's not cherry pick after the fact.
Re:ColdGate (Score:4, Insightful)
Link to the actual decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the supremes' decision:
From working on the Bilski case, I've ended up reading a dozen US Supreme Court decisions, and I've found them surprisingly readable. There are times when you just have to accept that something has a meaning that you don't know, but even with these gaps, the remaining text is usually coherent.
Well, it's not that unusual. (Score:5, Interesting)
Canadian law, and I generally consider Canada to be a free society, has the possibility of indefinite detention if someone is found to be a dangerous offender, and likely to reoffend. It's not very often used, mostly in the most grievous murder and sexual assault cases.
Wikipedia has more information: Dangerous Offender [wikipedia.org]
Misleading Summary (Score:3, Informative)
Unbelieveable (Score:4, Interesting)
I am incredibly enraged that the Supreme Court would rule that it is Constitutional to violate the 5th Amendment Due Process clause because of the children. If you want to give them counseling, then put a prescribed amount in the sentence. The courts have ruled that "life" sentences violate due process, and yet holding them indefinitely for counseling doesn't?
Emotion should, from time to time, temper the application of law, but never the application of rights ~ shellsterdude.
Thank you SCALIA and THOMAS (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure it's possible to praise justices Scalia and Thomas on Slashdot without be marked as a Troll, but I'm about to.
There is a lesson in this to be learned by all of those who rail against justices like Scalia and Thomas when they vote contrary to your personal beliefs about social issues.
This is at the core of the difference between tyranny and a constitutional republic.
As Edward Kennedy recently put it, are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men? Today we see again that we are merely a nation of men, ruled by the arbitrary will of an unelected few, rather than by a constitution designed to protect at all costs the liberty of the few from the will of the many.
If you don't like the constitution, we have process in place to change it for exactly that reason. We have many times before. That's the agreement you and I have as members of a civilized, free society. If you think you can walk all over the peoples' document when it becomes an obstacle to your social agenda: FUCK YOU.
Re:Thank you SCALIA and THOMAS (Score:4, Interesting)
The challenge to the civil commitment law was brought by five prisoners. The case of Graydon Comstock was typical. In November 2006, six days before Mr. Comstock was to have completed a 37-month sentence for receiving child pornography, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales certified that Mr. Comstock was a sexually dangerous person.
Last year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., unanimously ruled that none of the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution empowered it to authorize such civil commitments. But the decision was stayed, and Mr. Comstock has remained confined in a federal prison.
A three year sentence (for looking at porn) becomes a sort of "indefinite detention" (still in federal prison!) by the fiat of a cabinet member with minimal judicial oversight, and a seven-justice "liberal" majority hands down a ruling more authoritarian than the (unanimous) Fourth Circuit. Shit.
Personally I find this ruling considerably more despicable and dangerous than the Alito-Scalia-Thomas dissent in the narrow Graham v. Florida ruling (majority: no JLWOP sentences, except for homicide). That dissent was extremely conservative, and perhaps Scalia and Thomas' definitions of "cruel" punishment are regressive and have not changed with the times, but even the majority didn't hand down some kind of progressive ultimatum. Now juvenile criminals--who didn't kill anyone--must be offered the chance of parole...eventually. In Comstock, on the other hand, a larger majority, led by "liberal" justices, gave the government the right to indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens (four of whom were perfectly, legally sane when they were convicted) on the grounds that any sex-crime conviction (even totally non-violent ones) is sufficient de facto evidence of mental illness (after conviction) for civil commitment. *Chirping of crickets*. Is this legal reasoning coming from a seven-justice majority of the Supreme Court, or from Comrade Breyer of the Politburo? Perhaps we could also charge the prisoners for their "treatment?"
The court observes that "Congress has long been involved in the delivery of mental health care to federal prisoners, and has provided for their civil commitment." I'm sure the plaintiffs appreciate the "mental health care" they are receiving in a federal penitentiary. This could become a gaping hole through which the fifth, sixth and eighth Amendments could plummet. You thought the commerce clause was abused? Now the government has necessary and proper powers to implement unconstitutional ones (though the court "assumed but did not decide" the constitutionality of the powers themselves, embracing a rather convenient opportunity to abandon "judicial activism," it seems).
I would take issue with the assertion that we are "ruled by the arbitrary will of an unelected few," however. An unelected few has failed to prevent the tyranny of the majority (by the hand of another unelected few), but the policies they endorsed are hardly unpopular. Some of the blame lies with the people. Eroding Miranda polls very well, too; ultimately the constitution can only limit the government if people believe that it does. Even the judiciary is ultimately appointed by an elected government. The notion that we are a nation of laws must itself be popular, because democracy (even the republican sort) is an inherently unstable mechanism.
Re:Thank you SCALIA and THOMAS (Score:4, Interesting)
Thomas is not the intellectual that Scalia is, but my praise isn't for being an intellectual. My praise is for refusing to substitute personal beliefs on social policy for the clear an unambiguous language, or lack of language, of the constitution. Thomas in his own writing and speaking has his constitutional principles right on.
That's saying more than I can for any of the other justices, including Roberts and Alito.
Give me the federalism enshrined in the constitution any day. Sure, that might mean that Texas has fucked up state laws for one generation longer than the rest of the country, but it also strips the federal government of the power that is becoming our undoing.
And with good reason. It is at the federal level where our representation is weakest that today the power and wealth of government is greatest. The reverse of this was the intent. Here today we see just one illustration of why.
Mental Illness (Score:3, Insightful)
If sex offenders are mentally ill, which caused their behavior, and are still ill that way when their sentence is up, then they shouldn't be released. They probably shouldn't be in jail, either. They should be in a psychiatric jail.
The law in the US regarding sickness vs criminality is so screwed up that there's little chance people's rights will be protected when their illness creates either harm or risk to other people.
It is a very sad day. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I agree with Scalia and Thomas and no one else on a Supreme Court decision. You cannot change the rules of incarceration. There is a sentence. If you want to hold prisoners longer make the sentence longer. You could even make the possibility of additional comfinement, but you can't make the sentence a court gave them any longer without a new trial.
Well I guess you can now. Who the fuck cares about the Constitution? No one. No one who matters anyway.
Drifting definitions alert! (Score:3, Interesting)
TOA was a little misleading. I originally had the impression that the guy got 37 months for receiving kiddie porn, and that the issue was whether he was likely to look at kiddie porn again. Uh-oh!... We'd better lock up those picture lookers for LIFE! (Wouldn't it be cheaper to just blind them?)
Actually, the issue is: Once the Government has a dangerous (and dangerous is pretty well-defined) criminal incarcerated, and they know that he/she is not rehabilitated or mentally stable, is the Government entitled to protect society by keeping him locked up until either a State or institution takes custody and care? Yeah, there are some issues about incarcerating someone for something he might do in the future, but the general public is too ignorant to evaluate that properly. So, the solution is to preserve the status quo until you can shift the responsibility/blame onto someone else. After all, the perp is already locked up; what difference does a few more years make?
Considering that a huge number of ex-cons are recidivists, it might be used as an argument to keep everybody locked up forever. I noticed that in the case quoted, it was the State that certified him as "dangerous". Given the demagoguery and hysteria of some of our Texas prosecutors, I'm not sure I trust them to define "dangerous" in any meaningful way.
Sentencing == pulling numbers out of thin air (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you let someone go before they've rehabilitated? That's stupid.
And why would you keep them in prison after they've rehabilitated? That's also stupid.
So then why sentence a criminal for any number of years at all, when you don't know yet how long it will take? Pulling numbers out of thin air just doesn't sound like a very good idea. Am I way off base here?
Castration? (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone is that much of a danger sexually, then why haven't we castrated them? Would that not go a long way in ensuring that they do not commit such a crime again?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Justices decide if the Constitution prohibits a law, not if the law is a good idea.
IANACL (I Am Not A Constitutional Lawyer), but I don't understand how this law would necessarily be unconstitutional -- these people are being given access to due process, and are essentially being held on the same legal basis that the government uses to commit the dangerously mentally ill (which, really, is what these folks are).
This isn't to debate the merits of the law itself, of course, but blaming the Democratic-leaning
Re:A free society. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you'd better hope we get more justices like the dissenters... Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented in the case... (FTFA)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Scalia's and Thomas' objection to civil commitment has nothing to do with opposing
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're all awful people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)