Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Nobody here wants child rapists on the street.

This ruling is unconstitutional period.

Want them to stay in jail after they served their sentence? Pass a law mandating a psychological analysis before release. They fail, they stay in jail. Even that opens the door for abuse by the government.

Give them a choice. Complete chemical castration or they stay in jail. Even that is BS since it's SEX OFFENDERS that are targeted.

Pass a law about CHILD RAPISTS and PAEDOPHILES, real ones, not SEX OFFENDERS. Sex offenders is WAY TOO BROAD.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Vitchilo]

reply to post by Vitchilo


I do agree that the term Sex Offender is perhaps far too broad a spectrum, but my stance stands.

I don't care if it's unconstitutional, I really don't, not with this particular issue.

spych evaluation is a good idea, although again, you can't fix attraction, it's not possible....

~Keeper

This is completely stupid. Soon they'll be detained without judgement.

Personally I believe that sex offenders are being used to soften people up into having their rights taken away. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of sex offenders, but I just watch the rights that are being taken away from them. They are only permitted to live in certain locations. They are tagged with GPS. They are required to report all movements to the government. Their location is posted on the internet for all to see. And its all done "for the good of society". Just like we have been legally obligated to get car insurance, health insurance, and home owner's insurance for the "good of society".


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Some people in this thread are disgusting, using the emotional appeal of 'oh if it happened to someone you loved you'd want them locked up forever". Yeah I probably would, but emotions arn't the basis of laws. I mean what if its just someone who's made a mistake? What if they can be reformed? What about murderers?

The problem with this is it sets a precedent for the government to say 'they're still dangerous, they need to stay in longer' for any crime! What if they choose to frame someone who opposes them? What if they make opposition a crime for 'safety', then they need to be kept in longer because they are still dangerous to peoples 'safety'. It's the beginning of a slippery slope, and they are using peoples emotions to make sure they don't fight back until it's too late...

If you want to keep these people in longer, change the sentence, I dont think a 1 off offence needs to be kept forever, repeat offenders could have mandatory longer sentences.

reply to post by Aggie Man


I think it's a good idea.

Verify then re-verify the D.N.A. results 100%. If it's against a child, let them rot in prison, preferrably in the general population where where his neighbors will take care of him before time will. Even the most hardened of criminals don't like child molesters. Re-classify that kind of crime for what it is, child molestation. Show me statistics where the majority of child molesters don't re-commit their crimes, and I MIGHT change my mind.

This should be handled on a case by case basis. But no matter WHAT the case is, get D.N.A. involved EVERY time.Everybody knows who a pervert is. Everybody knows who the horny teenager is who got out of hand with a girl 1 or 2 years younger than him. The former deserves life behind bars. The latter does not. These two types of crimes should not have the same classification. Whatever the case is, if violence is involved, double whatever the original sentence was. Again, on a case by case basis.

I think this is one of those laws where law enforcement officials will have no problem following. Nobody likes a pervert, why should we have to live with them ?



Peace

Originally posted by Scope and a Beam
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

How on earth can a murderer be worse than a sex offender?

I know of someone who was set upon in a snooker hall by two men armed with bats and various other weapons. As they attempted to beat him to a pulp, he smashed a beer bottle and stabbed one in the neck defending himself blindly in the skirmish; the fight ended quickly as it became apparent that the wounded attacker was dying. The guy with the bottle fled and most likely saved his own life, sadly he was sent to prison for murder. However he was merely doing anything he could whilst defending his own life as I'm sure many of us would in a similar situation.

Now this guys is a murderer yes, but compare what he did to that of a child molester or rapist, in my opinion it doesn't come close in terms of crime.

There's many factors and levels to murder and sex offenders etc, but I feel in their extremities sex offenders are still far worse than any murderer.

Oh yeah and the guy was attacked because he refused to give up his snooker table.

So to you, your average sex offender caught on Dateline is far worse than Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler?

well, bundy isn't the best comparison since he was also a rapist, but say, a serial killer that didn't rape too. like robert pickton or something. that's a nicer man than an average sex offender?

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Donnie Darko]

reply to post by SyphonX


What the Supreme Court said is that they can determine if the individual still is considered dangerous. I'm pretty sure they should have enough decency to determine that someone on a charge of statutory rape is less dangerous than someone who raped a 6 year old girl.

Not a consensual agreement between an 18 and a 16 year, that is statutory.
A girl can lie about her age and then press charges, that's a different case.

But people who rape by definition should be treated and charged an equality as murderers, or through them in a gang invested cell block at a prison and tell everyone what he did, that would be a good term.

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


Well, maybe you like to place faith in the competence and fair discretion of the court, but I certainly do not. Often times, the court doesn't care less in differentiating between certain cases, and many peoples lives are ruined.

Yes, I'm playing the ever so commonly announced "slippery slope" angle here, but it's a pretty important one.

The same way the government uses "terrorists" to hoist ridiculous civil liberties violations internationally on various populaces, they go ahead and use "sex offenders" to hoist massive domestic civil liberty violations on it's populace. Because anyone who disagrees with the enforcement and new legislation is probably a sex offender, right? Who dares speak against that. That is a slippery f-ing slope. As much as a lot of sex offenders deserve justice, this is just one of those times where you have to accept that it's probably not worth risking the flashpoint on the war against domestic liberty.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by SyphonX]

Originally posted by sos37

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.

Come back and tell us the same thing after your daughter/sister/mother is raped and/or killed by one of these monsters.

Not trying to be difficult with your post, but I think it's easy to sit back and dictate arm-chair politics if you've never been through the hell that loved ones go through at the hands of these monsters.

I'm all for detaining them until they die behind prison bars.

This is a nation of laws. We are garanteed equal justice under the law. Once someone has served their time they have paid thier debt to society.
If everyone believes that sex offendes need more jail time,then the congress needs to pass a law and judges need to hand out longer sentances.
It is unlawful to deprive someone of their freedon once their sentance has been served!

This sets a dangrous precident that over rules the Laws on the books. Things like this that are allowed to pass push this nation further in to Tyranny.

For example today it's the Sex offenders. Most will agree that most of the time they will re-offend and go back to jail, But there a few that just broke the law but it wasn't really a crime. Take for example in MS if there is greater than a 3 year age diffrence and the victim is under 18 you are a sex offender under the law. But the Law in MS contradicts itself because the Age of Consent is 16. No way am I condoning it, However under this law if one party was from another state it would make it a federal crime.

Now this ruling also clears the way for it to be used against the Patriots, But then again so does the patriot act.

Just another nail in the coffin of freedom.

You commit the crime, pay the fine, and do the time as ordered by the judge and the jury. Now you Do the time and when you have done the time that the law says fits the crime, the beaureaucracy can hold you now forever.

And guess what .... more and more Jails are becoming private run.

RIP American Constitution!

Originally posted by ventian
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.

Exactly who are the "federal officials" that will determine the fate of these inmates the article mentions?
Are those employed by private "institutions" ever federal officials as well?
Does anyone involved in the decision making process have any interests other than public safety?

I see

It's completely ok to release murderers
just as long they didn't rape their victims.

They are prioritizing sex crimes over death crimes.
That's f*****d up

[edit on 17-5-2010 by boondock-saint]

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I see

It's completely ok to release murderers
just as long they didn't rape their victims.

They are prioritizing sex crimes over death crimes.
That's f*****d up

[edit on 17-5-2010 by boondock-saint]

I think it makes sense Boon.

Think about it, you can reform a murderer, that's proven fact. There's nothing that compells people to murder (serial killers aside), it's mostly a choice think or a breaking point thing.

As for pedophiles it's literally a mental defect, an issue with attraction.

I'd rather release the people who can be rehabilited then the one's whose only chance is chemical castration and even then sometimes that doesn't work.

~Keeper

reply to post by Aggie Man


Pervs --you cant rehab em so might as well keep them locked up. So dirty and nasty who would want them out anyway?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Um, excuse me?

Murdering is a choice and not the result of a mental defect?

and

Sex offenders are only because of mental defect or "more disturbed"?

What, exactly, are you trying to do here? You can reform "anyone", no one is excluded from reform. A penitentiary is called a penitentiary because it has the goal of making the convicts penitent of their crimes. A correctional facility seeks to do the same, it is the same, to correct someone. They put all offenders in these facilities with the goal to remove them from society temporarily, to correct them to the best of the facility's abilities, and then release them. Barring life sentences of course, and also barring the horrid 'turn-em-in-turn-em-out' turnstile condition of the prison system.

I would like to see your proof where, "most murderers can be reformed" but "sex offenders cannot be reformed". This is a ridiculous emotionally charged argument that would not even come close to holding up in a court of law, let alone any rational discussion.

What sex offenders are you talking about? The most heinous, or all of them?

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Um, excuse me?

Murdering is a choice and not the result of a mental defect?

and

Sex offenders are only because of mental defect or "more disturbed"?

What, exactly, are you trying to do here? You can reform "anyone", no one is excluded from reform. A penitentiary is called a penitentiary because it has the goal of making the convicts penitent of their crimes. A correctional facility seeks to do the same, it is the same, to correct someone. They put all offenders in these facilities with the goal to remove them from society temporarily, to correct them to the best of the facility's abilities, and then release them. Barring life sentences of course, and also barring the horrid 'turn-em-in-turn-em-out' turnstile condition of the prison system.

I would like to see your proof where, "most murderers can be reformed" but "sex offenders cannot be reformed". This is a ridiculous emotionally charged argument that would not even come close to holding up in a court of law, let alone any rational discussion.

What sex offenders are you talking about? The most heinous, or all of them?

I apologize, I should have been more clear.

I was talking about Child Molestors, specifically pedophiles. It has been proven that they lack and mental response to age when selecting a partner...

It is mostly emotionally charged and of my opinion.

I just think it easier, in a real world sense, to teach somebody not to kill, then to not pursue the thing they are attracted to.

~Keeper

Would you kill your own child if they were a sex offender?

Since they are so worthless now. Just asking.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Would you kill your own child if they were a sex offender?

Since they are so worthless now. Just asking.

Though question.

Depends, if he molested children as an adult then yes, he deserves the same treatment.

If he was 17 and his GF 15 and somehow got charged as a sex offender cause her parents pressed charges or another one of those ridiculous things you get labeled a sex offender for then no.

~Keeper

This is pretty much an admission that the (in)justice system does not work.

The notion that once a person has been in 'time-out' (jail) for an arbitrary number of years, means that they have been 'punished', is absurd.

Some people in jail do not belong there or could be better punished using other means.

Some people freely walking the streets should never be allowed to see the light of day, despite never being convicted of a crime. Some of these people are also known as 'politicians'.

Prison, Justice, Courts, Law, it's all en entire friggin' scam that people buy into.