Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

Additional Source: www.msnbc.msn.com...

Dissent by Thomas

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.

For anyone interested, the case is The case is U.S. v. Comstock, 08-1224.

Originally posted by Scope and a Beam
Why do you say everyone on earth is a sex offender? I don't understand this I for one am not.

Laws are selectively enforced. Everyone on earth thinks about sex, and just thinking about sex and never wanting to do it, can make you a sex offender today. Law enforcement use electronic mind control.

So just thinking about sex can make you a sex offender, but everyone thinks about sex.

Of course there are real sex offenders. The police can target anyone on earth as a sex offender as everyone thinks about it, and you never need to want to ever have sex for them to go after you. The police exploit that fact that everyone thinks about sex, and everyone is a hypocrite, about there own thoughts and fantasies.

Police could in theory target any person on earth as a sex offender, and anyone who thinks its not true, they are being hypocrites.

You people have no idea how easy it is to be labeled one, while everyone on earth is one.

But of course some go further than others and some have real problems. But you canbet your life females will see this and know they can get someone destroyed for no reason other then being just a normal male.

Originally posted by Aggie Man


I saw this and wanted to comment about it here on ATS.

So, I think that this is a bad idea. Not that I think sex offenders will come out of prison as model citizens; however, if they are sentenced and serve their time, do they not deserve to be set free? Why not include murders into this new "policy"? How about drug traffickers?

Is this the beginning of a slippery slope, which may lead to other convicted felons being detained beyond their sentence length?

So the theory is that true sex offenders are incurables and so will do it again and again when they get the chance. My problem with it dealing with a slippery slope is it could lead to abuse in labeling someone a sex offender who is not to just hold them as long as they want.

We would not need this if we actually gave long sentences to those who commit these crimes, but we typically see the guy who rapes a ten year old get like three years…..

reply to post by andy1033


No offence but I find your argument flawed, how can thinking about sex make you an offender? It is not illegal to think about sex.

Originally posted by Scope and a Beam
reply to post by andy1033

 

No offence but I find your argument flawed, how can thinking about sex make you an offender? It is not illegal to think about sex.

Your wrong there, thinking about sex can make you one today with thought crimes. Everyone on earth thinks about sex and they will exploit this.

The police can just make it all up, and people being hypocrites will call a person a sex offender.

Its already happening this scenario.

Just for example.

In the US, peeing on the side of the road is a sex crime.

Also, if you're a 18 years old guy and you go out with a 17 years old girl, and the mother of that girl is a nutjob who hates your guts because you're ``turning her precious daughter into a devil spawn`` she's gonna call the cops on you and make you a sex offender for the rest of your life.

There's countless examples of this kind of thing.

And extending sentences without any trial is freaking unconstitutional. They just wiped out the 5th and 6th amendment!

If you hate sex offenders, which most people do, try to extend the sentences for child rapists and that kind of people, do not push for destroying the constitution.

But now it seems it doesn't matter because they have ruled against the constitution.

So now PRE-CRIME is a reality... They can leave you in jail for POSSIBLE FUTURE CRIMES you MIGHT commit... Talk about ridiculous, outrageous, unconstitutional and DISGUSTING.

What's even worse... the cops could receive an anonymous call, they take you in until they have evidence, then they just say we cannot release you because we have no proof that you're NOT a threat... and with this Supreme Court ruling, they can leave you in jail FOREVER based on an anonymous call.

This is like STALIN'S SOVIET RUSSIA where an anonymous call at the Gestapo would get you arrested, tortured and sent to a work camp in Siberia.

THIS IS A DAY OF INFAMY IN THE HISTORY OF THE US.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Vitchilo]

I have no problem with child rapists and real rapists, but the laws can be abused so badly.

The people on this board do not understand that just thinking about sex, could make you a sex offender, and the police in uk and usa are using this tech today.

Any scenario to do with sex could label you a sex offender, and thats a real scenario.

So everyone really is a sex offender, but its selectively enforced like all crimes, but off course there are really child rapists and rapists out ther that i am not talking about.

I completely disagree with this ruling. What is next? Time served is time served. I do think repeat sex offenders (specifically pedophiles) should be in institutions for the criminally insane not simply jails though. No, these places are not walks in the park either.

Time to arrest the supreme courts judges as enemy of the people.

CITIZEN ARREST OF THE SUPREME COURT.

RIGHT NOW.

The whole thing has sunk to a new low.

First with sex offenders, soon with ``terrorists``.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Just for example.

In the US, peeing on the side of the road is a sex crime.

Also, if you're a 18 years old guy and you go out with a 17 years old girl, and the mother of that girl is a nutjob who hates your guts because you're ``turning her precious daughter into a devil spawn`` she's gonna call the cops on you and make you a sex offender for the rest of your life.

There's countless examples of this kind of thing.

And extending sentences without any trial is freaking unconstitutional. They just wiped out the 5th and 6th amendment!

If you hate sex offenders, which most people do, try to extend the sentences for child rapists and that kind of people, do not push for destroying the constitution.

But now it seems it doesn't matter because they have ruled against the constitution.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Vitchilo]

I bet they are looking at this as a mental problem that makes them unsafe to the public since we have seen that the “crazy” can be held forever too.

A guy and his family moved into my neighborhood a few years back and all the wives were in a up roar over it since he was a registered sex offender. Well talking to him he was 20 and his girl friend was 16 and now she is his wife with both in their thirties and a family. He did some time, but must register the rest of his life and tell every employment opportunity of it too.
My point is like yours that “sex offences” end up grouping a huge spread of acts/behaviors under one lable. So this guy above is equal to the pedophile rapist in the eyes of the law.


[edit on 17-5-2010 by Xtrozero]

Wow... this is absolutely over-the-top. I applaud the effort it took on those that pushed for this (those in Congress) because they used a loaded label to basically pave the way for arbitrary sentencing. Use child sexual offenders, who are notoriously seen as the lowest form of scum, to push through a law that would have laughed right out of the courts. I take most everything with a gain of salt around here and that which pertains to the fed, but this is a serious shot across the bow on a level with that of the patriot act. Makes me wonder how long before the witch trials start and we begin construction on the new Towers of London.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Any male can be labeled a sex offender. They will use the thing of sex offender, as they know the public do not care for them, and the government and polcie can make up anything.

I would say they use this loophole alot, and if you meet some nasty female in your life males, you too can be labeled like these people.

Every scenario involving sex and you can be labeled a sex offender, and that includes thinking about it, you never need to want to do it in real life.

The techs are there, and the ptb exploit the fact that every one is a hypocrite involving sex and there fanatises.

reply to post by Aggie Man

"Not that I think sex offenders will come out of prison as model citizens; however, if they are sentenced and serve their time, do they not deserve to be set free? Why not include murders into this new "policy"? How about drug traffickers?"

Many people can do time and learn a lesson and perhaps never commit the crime again.
However with some sex offenders the crime will be repeated because the problem is not behavioral but physiological and sometimes psychological. They cannot learn new and better ways. They are betrayed by their own compulsions which they cannot help.
They are doomed to repeat the crime as recidivism statistics bear out.
I don't sympathize or empathize but I certainly understand compulsion.

Sorry, is too late. I think if these criminals opt for chemical castration they can be released. And I think chemical castration should be provided as a mostly voluntary but sometimes enforced option. For those who think this is just awful I think it beats the death penalty which is where some of these men are headed without it.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
And extending sentences without any trial is freaking unconstitutional. They just wiped out the 5th and 6th amendment!

If you hate sex offenders, which most people do, try to extend the sentences for child rapists and that kind of people, do not push for destroying the constitution.

But now it seems it doesn't matter because they have ruled against the constitution.

AH! Someone got it!


Kudos, Vitchilo!

Once you see that the meaning goes well beyond lengthening the terms...
...you understand the root cause of it all.





Ok let's repeat the obvious.

ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Thanks!

[edit on 17-5-2010 by havok]

reply to post by havok


The death penalty is unconstitutional so where is the out cry?

In 1972, the Supreme Court declared that under then-existing laws "the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty… constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." (Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238) The Court, concentrating its objections on the manner in which death penalty laws had been applied, found the result so "harsh, freakish, and arbitrary" as to be constitutionally unacceptable. Making the nationwide impact of its decision unmistakable, the Court summarily reversed death sentences in the many cases then before it, which involved a wide range of state statutes, crimes and factual situations.

Do we only complain about constitutional violations when it suits our particular agenda?

Yes, I think so.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by rusethorcain]

I couldn't believe what I was reading.
WTF is wrong with our country???

First it was terrorists enemy combatants
held at Gitmo, held indef

then it was home grown terrorists

and now it is sex offenders

America is gradually becoming a prison
in which you have no rights.

Welcome to the Police State

we need a revolution
and we need it NOW !!!!!!
this can't wait anymore
if we don't do something
we won't have a country
in 3 years for our children.

STOP THE MADNESS !!!!

If I read the article properly, the people under consideration in this case did not actually perform any sex act with a child, they were merely in possession of child pornography. While that is bad enough, and deserving of a prison term, are we then supposed to imprison them indefinitely for the rest of their life, on the suspicion that they might commit some sex crime in the future? This is a slippery slope and sounds Orwellian to me. And of course, the person arguing the case on behalf of the government, was none other than Kagan, who is slated to become our next Supreme Court Justice. Does not bode well.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

It 'sounds' like a good idea on the surface, further dissection reveals the potential for severe abuse.

I think this ruling would actually serve to scare those in power who are involved with the child sex slave ring. Sounds good!

I can't help but feel that some poor chump with information he shouldn't have has been framed for something he didn't do and is rotting his only chance at life away in a cell.

Thus, I cannot help but feel that this law will increase the number of said chumps. Sounds bad!

Want to make a difference? Throw the book at child molesters. Create penalties for non-victims who fabricate stories.

Don't create a venue of endless incarceration subject only to the whims of TPTB.

Like I said initially, this does have a benevolent undertone if looked at with a cursory glance. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Originally posted by Tharsis
I can't help but feel that some poor chump with information he shouldn't have has been framed for something he didn't do and is rotting his only chance at life away in a cell.

Exactly sh1t all over your country will abuse this, and sex offenders, cannot speak out.

2nd line

Well lets think. MJ is getting closer and closer to full on legalization. These private "institutions" are going to have to find some way to make all that government money that they would otherwise lose. Sounds like they found a way.