It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:06 PM

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

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.


So you can't really say you love your children unconditionally, right? I mean to be fair.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:14 PM
reply to post by Donnie Darko

I would still love my children even if they were murders, rapists.

My mom use to say:

Travis I love you, but I don't have to like you."


posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:14 PM

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 agree this sets a bad precedence does a guy who downloads child porn deserve more time them a person who rapes and kills a woman? I understand the need to protect children believe me i have 2.But what im wondering is if this is fair? We pride our selves on equal treatment under the law. My other concern is whats next the supreme court decided if they are a danger to society they can be held. Now where does this stop are we going to hold people convicted of drug crimes there likely to reoffend and a danger to society. All most anyone who is locked up could be argued that there a menace to society or they wouldnt be in prison . So the worrying part for me is whats really the point of sentencing when they get to decide when you leave or if you leave??

[edit on 5/17/10 by dragonridr]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Donnie Darko

I would still love my children even if they were murders, rapists.

My mom use to say:

Travis I love you, but I don't have to like you."


So you would love them, but kill them out of a sense of duty? if they were rapists or murderers.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:10 PM
I obviously don't support sex offenders but recently I've noticed that people hate them the way they used to hate witches and this is what scares me about stories like this. Whenever the discussion turns to them people get insane, they start calling for the violent death of the person without any thought towards due process.

Once someone is sentenced to a specific prison time and serves that time they should be released because that is the law.

People can not be retried for the same offense twice, sentencing someone to a certain term in prison and then, once it's over, sentencing them to an "indefinite" second term for the same offense is unconstitutional.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Shadowflux]

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:05 AM
for anyone to assume all sex offenders are a bad person, is someone who assumes our government could do no wrong, and anyone found guilty in court must be honestly guilty.
you people honestly think there arent any false convictions in this country? especialy for sex offense, all a girl has to do is scream rape and the ten people around her go to jail for sex offense,

an example - My brother - 10 years ago when my brother was 18 he went to jail for having sex with a minor, the minor was his wife she was 17, it was the mother of his wife that reported him, and no matter how many times his wife told the police it was a lie and they hadnt had sex yet, the police wouldnt listen, my brother spent 6 months in jail for no #ing reason, he hasnt been able to get a good job since because the sex offender records folllows him everywere, and his multiple attempts to have the courts strike it from his record have failed, my brother is still married to the woman, she is now 28 he is 29, they now have three kids, dont think i sugercoated it either the sittuation is even worse and more unfair then as i laid it out.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:17 AM
reply to post by Aggie Man

The problem is that the rate of recidivism for these offenders is very high. Most such offenders repeat their crimes. Pedophiles and pederasts are among the worst for this. So, keeping them locked away is simply protecting future victims. The statistics showing how many commit the same crimes, or worse, after release, support such a decision. That isn't the case for all crimes. I do see your point, though. In this case, it's a good plan, but there is room for future abuse.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:26 AM

Originally posted by havok
Here's the problem people.

It's not about how long these people should serve their term.

It's about the gov't stepping in and changing things.

The entire situation has absolutely nothing todo with a sentence.

Sure, let us allow the gov't dictate how long things should be, just like how they can fire the CEO of a corporation, and how they can tell you you HAVE to pay for health care.

Don't you see the meaning here?
The gov't doesn't need to intervene in everything!

If you think people should get longer sentences' for crimes, then take it to the court system, or vote for different judges.

This is a citizens choice, not the gov't!
We elect the officials! We should elect those who preach about longer terms.
We should NOT allow the gov't to step in!

That is a very valid point. Now, I think that many of these offenders should automatically get a life sentence, if not death, and want stronger sentencing enforced. I have no issues with some of them never seeing the light of say again. But, that said, you hit the nail on the head here; it isn't about the particular issue, but about more government control. That, we do not need!

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:30 AM
Though difficult let's try to interpret the decision subjectively and look at the its importance.

Let me posit that I'm not anti all gov't rights or pro sexual offenses but this ruling is not as simple as the purely emotional argument being offered by many who applaud the decision.

The gov't relied on the Necessary and Proper Clause (for a primer see the following: ) to justify greater Federal rights. Keep in mind not just an 'ordinary' regulatory right but one that deals with civil confinement of its citizens.
The fact that they didnt even have to argue the Commerce Clause and still got a decisive ruling is a pretty powerful victory for Federal power and a pretty rough blow to Libertarians and the like.
Given the fairly tacit and strict arguments from the framers of the Constitution concerning the N&P Clause legally imho this appeared to be a stretch. It certainly is one of the biggest pro Federal govt decisions in the last 50 years. Then again given rulings over the last decade this appears to be the trend rather than the exception.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:35 AM

Originally posted by andy1033
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.

Where is your evidence of anyone using mind-reading technology to arrest people?

Your premise that all are offenders is flawed. Some people being accused unjustly doesn't make the rest of the world guilty. No, we are not all sex offenders. That the laws can be abused doesn't make the world guilty.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:10 AM

Originally posted by dragonridr
whats really the point of sentencing when they get to decide when you leave or if you leave??


...doesnt matter if we're talking about arsonists or dope dealers or embezzlers or hot check writers or murderers... the sentence is supposed to be "fixed" at the sentencing part of a trial - but - a convict can receive more time if they misbehave while in prison - however - that doesnt appear to be the case in this case...

...if grayden comstock is guilty of so horribly misbehaving while incarcerated that he needs to be locked up for the rest of his life, where is the proof of that misbehavior?... since this went all the way to the supreme court, the evidence should be very easy to find - should be cited in the supreme court rulings on this case... where is it?...

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:58 AM
Why is the press making this into such a big deal?

Why not tell the 'rest of the story' - that this is nothing new?

McNeil Island in Washington State has been up and running and (thankfully) keeping repeat offenders off the streets AFTER they've served their sentence(s) - for years now.

The repeat offender serves their jail sentence and on release day is whisked off to the 'Island.'

Great stuff that. More power to them.

As for encroaching on individual rights? lol In my opinion anyone who rapes a child and repeat offends HAS NO RIGHTS. Period.
Notice I emphasize REPEAT offender.

On another note something that absolutely sickens me? The living conditions on McNeil Island.

It's like a honeymoon suite for pedophiles - but - it's still better than having them out and about stalking playgrounds.

McNeil Island Corrections Center

Massive amount of child porn found at McNeil Island facility

Stop enabling McNeil’s sex predators

Anyway, one of these days I'll have to put together a full thread about McNeil, but, now isn't the time.


[edit on 18-5-2010 by silo13]

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:00 AM
My wife and i were arrested once for public indecency, together. We were making out at a local lake.

The whole affair was BS, they broke several laws during our arrest, lied about our "crimes" (i was there for rape and she for prostitution, apparently) when we requested bail, and subjected both myself and my wife to various intimidatory tactics. The monday morning we didn't even make it to court, that's how the courts viewed our "crime". Dismissed, and our attempts to lay charges against the guys who arrested were dismissed, and we were theatened with re-arrest if we didn't shut up and go away.

Now take what happened, that was a "sex crime" for which i could EASILY have been held indefinitely under this new direction your law is taking.

I'm not in the US (thank the gods) but this is going to bite you guys.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:18 AM
reply to post by Donnie Darko

I could never kill my own children.

However if they were sentenced to death by a jury of their peers for crimes they actually commited, so be it.

I understand that sounds a bit hypocrital given the topic and my initial response.

I get it though, the whole stepping on people's rights and a dangerous infringement of law on citizens that could very well lead to abusive behaviour by multiple agencies.

It's not a practice I would encourage in any other context nor with any other crime or type of person.

That's just the way I feel.

I certainly see the different sides of the argument, I respect those and fully understand them.

I just can't seem to dissasociate hatred and pure barbaric thoughts from child abusers. To tell you the truth, I don't want to...


posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:11 AM
The first thing one must do when thinking logically is remove emotion. Emotions over rides logic every time. That is just a fact of life.

It goes without saying that most people really do not give a crap what happens to the child molester. I know I don't. Child molesters are a complete waste of my air on this planet and if the death penalty was ever attached to child molestation, I would be a strong supporter of it.

With that being said, I didn't see anything in the article about child molesters. The article says "sex offenders" and that is a very broad term. What exactly is a sex offender? Well that varies from state to state, but it can include any law on the books that are sexual in nature. In some states, sodomy is illegal even if both parties consent to engaging in the act. These people would be considered sex offenders. Should we kill them or hold them in jail forever?

I think most of us agree that incest is pretty gross, but should two people who choose to engage in that act be held indefinitely? What about a guy who got caught peeing behind a building? Usually that charge is called "indecent exposure" and that charge, in some states, qualifies a person as a sex offender. What about the religious people who believe in bigamy? What about Adultery? Again, in some states these are still on the books as "crimes" and they all qualify as non forcible sex offenses.

In a perfect world I would support this type of legislation, but as I am sure I do not have to tell anyone here, we do not live in a perfect world. Laws are abused and misused, even in sex cases. HERE is a very recent bullying case. A very tragic case that sadly ended with one girl committing suicide. What makes that case interesting is that there are no laws against being a bully, so the Prosecutor in this case is using statutory rape laws in an attempt to get justice. That would label those kids as sex offenders. Should we just throw away key if they are convicted? We live in a world where kids are exposed to sexual themes all the time, from music to movies to videos to what they hear at school, it is everywhere. So if a 15 year old girl willingly has sex with a 16 year old boy, should he be sent to prison until he is 80?

That just covers the common sense portion of my post. Now let's get to the real issues that are not covered on the surface. The laws surrounding sex crimes are made up at the state level. In some states you can get 15 years for rape while in others you may only get 7 years for rape. This happens because the laws are made up on the state level and if you do not like the law, you can always change it at the state level. I can not think of anytime the Federal Government made an arrest or investigated a rape case. It is handled by the local police in the area where the crime was committed. It is a state issue all around and the Federal Government has no business being involved in the enforcement of State Law.

It matters not to me what the current intentions are behind this ruling. I have seen this script before from our Government. It starts with an undesirable element, people support it. Over time it moves from that original undesirable element to another, than another. The US Patriot Act was meant for "terrorist". Some cave dwellers overseas who hated us for our freedoms and wanted to see us all dead. Now we see Tea Party Protesters being called "Terrorist". We have seen the US Patriot Act used against US citizens. What about wiretapping? It was supposed to be used against those crazy "terrorist". The rest of us had nothing to worry about if we did not make phone calls to Pakistan or Iran or some place where "terrorist" are off making their plans for the destruction of us Americans. Now we know that wiretapping is done at home, on American citizens, for any reason.

Does anyone really believe that "indefinite detention" will start and end with "Sex Offenders" on a Federal level? If you answered "yes" I have to ask, are you willing to bet you life on it? I only ask that question because if your wrong, it just may cost you the rest of your life.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:00 AM

Originally posted by harryhaller
Now take what happened, that was a "sex crime" for which i could EASILY have been held indefinitely under this new direction your law is taking.

You could easily of been on a sex offender list, and you done what peopel consider to be normal.

But society would of heard your a sex offender, oh no that bloke is a sex offender, when mostly everyone is in that situation and you can bet the police are the biggest perves.

But this law is just to screw over anyone for anything, and being labeled a sex offender means no one will listen to you. Its very clever how they do this, when in there terms everyone on earth is a sex offender as just by thinking about it can mean your a sex offender in there eyes, and it really is like that.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:17 AM
didn't really have time to read through all the posts, but, well...have to ask...because I have my doubts...(haven't had time to search around for the answer....)
but is this constitutional?? I mean, you go to court, you're convicted of a crime, and get sentenced....
and then it seems you are getting resentenced again for the same crime.
isnt' this double jeopardy or something?

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:56 AM
well it happened to me personialy I was raped by a woman .
no she didnt force me to have sex she told the poilice i cohohersed her to give me sex. Now lucky for me she wanted to make that days soap opera or id be rotting in jail her story with covered two pages of police report reda like a bad writen soap the investagater said point blank I know she was lieing but i had had even thought for a minit she wasnt you wouldnt be sitting here.
POINT blank if she had been less mothy I would be in JAIL.
if all she said was he forced me ( yea we did accutly have sex )) I would be IN jail but she loved her soaps to much thank god .
and can i stand the breed now man I cant touch a woman even though i so wish i could .
I get with one now shes there on the bed i get to the point of well and down it goes cant trust them what if this woman later decides she is pissed .
man what these duds say is true all a woman needs to do is say you grabed her ASS and stick with that Officer bhe walked buy and grabed my ass
she says taht ten times the same way YOUR TOST.
kill a guy for raping a woman ok ill go with that as long as you put taht woman who lies and says you did to daeth as well.
because let me assure you I WAS RAPED by a woman man it would have been easer if all she did was hold me down and force me

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:57 AM
I think pedophiles are the lowest form of human life. That being said, I think this is unconstitutional. It's molestors now, how long before they indefinitely hold you for a parking ticket? When your sentence is up your sentence is up.

The judges need to do a better job sentencing on the front end rather than violating someones constitutional rights on the back side.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:45 AM
This is a dangerous decision. It is clearly unconstitutional. The use of "sex offenders" is clearly desensitization.

This is move to empower the Federal Government, run out of Washington, DC., to imprison any citizen for an indefinite amount of time.

For now, only "sex offenders" are the target. Soon it will be those who commit crimes with a gun. Then it will be those who merely speak against the Federal Government.

We have too many communists on the Supreme Court. It should be dissolved as it no longer serves to protect the Constitution.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by mike_trivisonno]

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in