1109 users online (236 members and 873 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,573

    Supreme Court Rules That Some Sex Offenders Can Be Held Indefinitely

    Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

    The Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to indefinitely keep some sex offenders behind bars 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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,573
    I have mixed emotions on this. I DEFINITELY agree with keeping sex offenders locked up for life. I just don't like the way it's being done. I don't think the government should have the right to hold anyone after their sentence has been served. I think the best answer is to increase the sentences for sex offenders. JMO

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,012
    This is good news!!

    VB
    Boyfriends and girlfriends are not Babysitters.
    Just because you want to be with somebody does not mean they will take care of your children.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Penn's woods
    Posts
    17,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
    I have mixed emotions on this. I DEFINITELY agree with keeping sex offenders locked up for life. I just don't like the way it's being done. I don't think the government should have the right to hold anyone after their sentence has been served. I think the best answer is to increase the sentences for sex offenders. JMO
    I feel the same steely dan. I wish that the sentences were increased to keep these offenders behind bars across every state. I agree with sentencing sex offenders (esp. violent ones) behind bars for the rest of their natural lifes to protect society.

    I have reservations of this particular bit of news. I am wary of having the Govn step in where the state should. JMHO.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,425
    This law is very odd and dangerous.........where do they draw the line at? I loathe sexual predators and I personally think ANYONE that rapes someone 14 and under should receive MANDATORY life imprisonment.........THAT is what the "new" law should be. This "new" law is not the way to go about it VERY controversial PLUS couldn't someone sue the federal gov if one is let out and then rapes again? Just make it mandatory life anyone who rapes someone 14 and under!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    massachusetts
    Posts
    6,342
    they should just sentnece them all to life.

    but if this ruling prevents another gardner or garrido, im for it

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Not Of This World
    Posts
    21,642
    Finally!!!! This will lead to better laws, I believe.


    Follow me on the Twitter! @EricDiesel1972

    Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (KJV)

    10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord. (KJV)

    Follow me at my Biblical Blog: http://scripture-demystified.blogspot.com

    Baruch ha Shem Adonai.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    195
    I apparently feel like many who have posted so far: I don't want them let out either, but just seems like the wrong way to go about doing it. The fact that you're holding people without trial or recourse, apparently, at the federal government's say, just seems to go against the Constitution. I know this passed 7-2. I guess I need to read the supporting statement more, I just don't get how this is Constitutional at all.

    That said, I think true sexual deviants will be predators forever and that letting them out is just setting them up to victimize again. So it's hard for me to say I don't support the intention. I just don't support the way it's done.

    Why can't the sentencing guidelines change? That seems the most legal recourse.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,580
    I would be the FIRST to vote for HARSHER sentences for these sexual predators, but I too think this is NOT the way to go about it and completely against our Constitution!

    This is a very dangerous precendent to be setting. First the terrorists, wasn't it? Now the 'sexual predators.' Who's next?

    I'm waiting for the lawsuits to start flying,...............or NOT! Actually, I'd be more frightened if there were NOT any lawsuits challenging this law.

    JMHO
    fran

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    massachusetts
    Posts
    6,342
    and when they get sentenced to long sentences they give the 'im a changed man' bs (garrido) or have some idiot therapist claim they arent a danger (like gardner) and they just get paroled anyways.

    life without parole or the dp would settle these issues permanently


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,384
    I'm in agreement with changing the laws......I personally feel ANY crime against a child(sexual or physical) should be a FEDERAL crime and demands a life sentence (and life it really means 'life'!).However maybe this will help change laws & create longer sentences.
    The saints are the sinners who keep trying...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,573
    Quote Originally Posted by fran View Post
    I would be the FIRST to vote for HARSHER sentences for these sexual predators, but I too think this is NOT the way to go about it and completely against our Constitution!

    This is a very dangerous precendent to be setting. First the terrorists, wasn't it? Now the 'sexual predators.' Who's next?

    I'm waiting for the lawsuits to start flying,...............or NOT! Actually, I'd be more frightened if there were NOT any lawsuits challenging this law.

    JMHO
    fran
    I think this is it. I don't think they can go any higher than the SC.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    where no man has boldy gone
    Posts
    3,642
    I don't think this is constitutional. How can you hold someone passed their sentence. We let murders and rapist back out into society. You should not condemn one group over another. I realize some of them don't belong back in society , but they should have some kind of half way house or mental facility they can go to, that specialize in the mentality of these people. They are sick and that's the way they should be treated.
    It's almost been a year since we did our last show.Jay Bush my partner has been auditioning for the show Shark Tank and so this has put the show on hold. If he gets on Shark Tank, we will be terribly delayed. Good luck Jay. Either way we will one day continue the show and have the coolest global independent radio station out there. This is just a small video we did with one of our artists.Waiting for One and their tune 35 years. Check it out.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Go80y20fA
    We hope to be doing a radio show with all our artists real soon. Hope you can join in the fun. Please bare with us while we improve the show especially the sound.
    Laserdog Enterprises would like to bring you our version of a Tribute to the Angels of Newtown. Another school shooting in Georgia thankfully no children were hurt.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axOGOBT77Xs

    Please take a few moments and visit the missing children site. We really need you.
    Click on the link to find a missing child,teen or adult.

    http://www.missingkids.com/missingki...eCountry=en_US

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,573
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    "First They Came for the Jews"
    By Pastor Niemoller

    First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    195
    Okay, I was sufficiently disturbed by this to start reading the Supreme Court official ruling, which can be found here:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

    And now I feel a little better about it.

    From what I can tell so far, there are three conditions required to continue to incarcerate the individual: (1) has "previously engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation," (2) currently "suffers from a serious mental illness, disorder, or abnormality", and, (3) "as a result of" that mental illness, abnormality, or disorder is "sexually dangerous to others," in that "he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released."

    So what happens if, prior to the release of a predatory sexual offender, the states already had (at least in some cases, from what I can tell) authority to continue to hold the person. This is extended that to the federal level.

    It's someone acting in the capacity of the Department of Justice that would initiate this process. And even then, it's not a 'we say so, back you go!' deal. A federal district judge has to rule on whether or not the three conditions are met, and it's a trial where the accused has legal representation. There is supposedly a schedule of follow-up psychiatric evaluation and scheduled reviews, including judicial reviews every six months, so it's not locking up and throwing away the key necessarily (though I imagine in practice few would get let out, as everything I've read seems to indicate the violent sexual offenders have some mental disease that cannot be cured).

    It talked about five people who had cases that were appealing to the Supreme Court, calling into question the Constitutionality of continued incarceration. So that's what the ruling is for, that in general IF THERE IS DUE PROCESS and conditions are met on the DOJ's side for establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the dangers, that the process of extending incarceration was not inherently unconstitutional. Individual cases were decided elsewhere, and it sounds like it was split between those where the decision to incarcerate them further was upheld, and those where they were released.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. CT Supreme Court Rules Gays Can Marry
    By southcitymom in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-14-2008, 04:25 AM
  2. Supreme Court rules child rapists can't be executed
    By Taximom in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 01:24 AM
  3. Texas Supreme Court Rules Children go back
    By Details in forum FLDS Raids and Related Items
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-02-2008, 09:23 PM