A very slippery Slope..........

[clublights]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html?hpt=T1

HEll I'll admit I agree with the IDEA for child rapists but it sets a VERY bad precedent that could be used and twisted for "evil usage" in the future.... how can you be sure it will only stop at these monsters ? it's already scary enough to think you could be declared an enemy combatant and held with out trial and all that. now you could get your trial and still be held after you punch your time out ? ..

Scary.

And yes I got my tin foil on tight.

[Irving]

If people can not be trusted in society, then they should remain in prison indefinitely. It seems like this law would have been better if it addressed sentencing for ALL inmates, and not just sex offenders.

[BigBear]

I still like the idea of three strikes on a felony and you are killed on the spot. For heinous crimes, one strike.

Same should go for lawyers and people who abuse the system.

[Irving]

I still like the idea of three strikes on a felony and you are killed on the spot. For heinous crimes, one strike.

Same should go for lawyers and people who abuse the system.

Did you know that it is a felony in Colorado to say bad things about the meat industry?

Laws like the Three Strikes thing should all be removed until we can start from the ground up with realistic laws and punishments. It shouldn't be a felony to steal cable or publicly say bad things about the meat industry.

[BigBear]

Meat industry is a little weird...

But why shouldn't it be a felony to steal cable? It is not a nessecity of life... and you are STEALING.

[Irving]

Crimes that don't threaten life and have no physical connection with another person shouldn't be a felony.

Driving 10 mph over the limit isn't necessary, driving itself is a privilege, after all, you are SPEEDING. Should it be a felony? Of course not.

[theGinsue]

Okay, here is my take on this. As you can see, I'm in agreement with the OP:

Okay, the long and the short of this story is pretty clear from the subject line of this message. On the outside, I don’t know anyone who would have a problem with this. Who in their right mind wouldn’t want someone convicted of crimes against a child/children to be incarcerated for life, or even executed? But, if you look at this more closely, you’ll recognize the slippery slope that this new decision can lead to.

First off, what if the courts were wrong about the individuals guilt in the first place? The ramifications of this need no further explanation.

Next, where is due process? We are given some protections in the 5th Amendment (Federal jurisdiction) and the 14th Amendment (State jurisdictions).

The 5th amendment does have a caveat of “when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” The key part is “public danger”.

If you successfully complete your court directed sentence, and have not committed further crimes, how is due process and justice being served to maintain your imprisonment?

Most importantly, what is to stop our government at having this rule apply only to those convicted of crimes against a child/children? How long before this rule is applied to murders, then rapists, then thieves, then tax evaders, those perceived as enemies of the state, and finally, petty criminals? Each step further erodes our Constitutional protections. Initially, these changes are easy for the public at large to accept. By the time we start to choke on the changes it is too late.

You don’t think it can happen? This very thing has happened to countries across the globe many times in the last 100 years. We are already holding suspected Al Queda terrorists indefinitely without so much as a trial. How long until citizens join them for voicing opposition to our nations leadership?
[ETA: For the record, I have had no issues with holding NON-citizens indefinitely. I do not beleive that NON-citizens are privy to our Constitutional protections.]

When you accept the violations of an individual’s rights in the name of “public safety”, you open the door to the expansion of the definition of “public safety” to lesser crimes until no one has any rights.

[BigBear]

Don't know.... guess I'm just a hard ass Stu.

Ginsue, good logic.... and I understand the arguement. I still stand by the descision to go ahead and execute the 100% criminals.

[CrufflerSteve]

It's being heavily discussed at http://volokh.com/, generally a fairly conservative pro-gun site. I think this is a state vs. individual issue. The fact that my two favorite justices, Thomas & Scalia were the dissent makes me think about it. People often like to discuss liberal vs conservative but there is also a statist vs. individual view and this is an example.

It is hard to care at about sexual predators but they are a very convenient first step. The lawmakers could grow some cojones and have appropriate sentencing for heinous crimes but letting some paperpusher decide who stays in forever is not fitting with a society of citizens. It fits with subjects of the state.

I wonder about Alito and Roberts. They are pretty conservative and gun rights are the better for it but they sure love all power to the masters.

Steve

[iamhunter]

You guys need to do some serious thinking on this.

It's easy for you to be a ultra-legalistic "hard-ass"

Until you realize the law all-too-often comes down hard on the heads of the innocent.

As a kid, I watched my best friend's mother spend most of her life in jail (15+ years), for a crime I knew she didn't commmit (2nd degree murder of a child).

She was recently acquitted of all charges and released.

But that's 15 years of her life she'll never get back. And the entire childhood of her daughter she missed.

Our legal system may be the best there is, but it's still EXTREMELY flawed.
Often times emotions and rhetoric play into a Jury decision more than they should.

Some people might be OK with innocent people being jailed or killed in "for the greater good" (in the sense that more guilty than innocent go to jail).

But as Jefferson said,

I'd rather see a thousand guilty men go free, than one innocent man be wrongly imprisoned.

[theGinsue]

The lawmakers could grow some cojones and have appropriate sentencing for heinous crimes but letting some paperpusher decide who stays in forever is not fitting with a society of citizens. It fits with subjects of the state.

^^^ +1 this


But as Jefferson said,

I'd rather see a thousand guilty men go free, than one innocent man be wrongly imprisoned.

+1 This too.

[Hoosier]

We keep letting violent criminals go because the prison systems are overcrowded, yet we keeping putting more people who did no violence to another person into prisons.

I think if your offense isn't a repeat, and you did no intentional physical violence to another person, the penalty should be $$$ even if they have to put a lien on your house or take wages directly. But throwing people into prison for non-violent crimes can turn people into violent criminals.

So say you steal $100, you have to pay back $1000... $500 to the victim and $500 to the state? It beats being in prison where it costs us money. It's a dis-incentive to steal again. If someone is a repeat offender, then jail time is on the docket.

We have more people in prison per capita...

H.

[68Charger]

I'm with Stuart on the Felony- the punishment needs to fit the crime..

but on this ruling, I'm with clublights & Ginsue.. the only way it should be possible is if there are very clearly defined criteria as to how it's deployed..

When they're released, they're under authority a probation/parole officer who can dictate if they have a GPS unit on them, they report to at least weekly, (also to therapy weekly, and undergo periodic polygraphs, etc) they have to have everything they do cleared by the PO, and can issue a warrant for their arrest on just suspicion.. but to incarcerate them indefinitely without due process? I'd be more for chemical or actual castration for the hard cases...

I have second hand knowledge of the sex offender system in Fremont county (long story, I was called as a witness since I went to the same church), and it's certainly not flawless.. I'd agree with the hardass approach on violent cases- but you'd probably be surprised the grey areas that can get labeled as sex offenders... some counties see it as a revenue stream. (who do you think pays for the therapy, GPS unit, etc?) and some have lost small fortunes to lawyers to defending false or over-reaching accusations.

between this and the idea of people on a unknown no-fly list being denied firearms purchases, and you've got a real basis for a police state.. without controls in place to ensure it's not abused, it's more dangerous than the criminals.. specific criteria when it applies, when it's no longer applicable, what can get you off the list if you're there erroneously, etc..

But this is where it starts- with the demonized.. "sex" offenders, terrorists.. while they work to broaden the definition: "suspected" terrorists, "possible" sex offenders, until they can pretty much nab anyone they want with a simple story of what they "think" he was going to do- if it's horrible enough, people will buy into the idea that it's worth violating HIS/HER rights to keep all of US safe.

[iamhunter]

if it's horrible enough, people will buy into the idea that it's worth violating HIS/HER rights to keep all of US safe.

I'd rather die in some "atrocity" before I allowed pre-emptive crime to exist.

Anyone seen Minority Report?

[SA Friday]

Mandatory sentencing and three strikes laws are just as slippery a slope as the rest. They both take sentencing discretion from the judge and place power squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. This shifts the power of trial grossly to the state and that is tyrany. It also turns any trial to an all-or-nothing proposition. Mandatory sentencing has already been tried and tested and found lacking. The SC found mantatory sentencing for drug offenses unconstitutional and struck down 20 years of that garbage. Three strike laws are just as bad, and I suspect they will eventually come to an end in a SC ruling. Any law that takes discretion away from the LE, prosecution, defense, or judge is a bad direction. Every trial, every offense, and every judgement is an individual entity and should be treated so.

I find it ironic that many in politics championing individual rights all the time are the same that support taking the discretion from judges and others and misbalance the judiciary scales. This ALWAYS favors the state and NOT the individual.

This is a bad ruling. At the very least, it should require a judicial review and ruling to extend emprisonment beyond the original sentence. Checks and balances are the insurance our government uses to stop abuse. Every instance we stop using it, we faulter.

[BigBear]

Anyone seen Minority Report?


Nope, should I go rent it?

[Irving]

Yes Bear.

I don't like this ruling. No point in being sentenced at all if it's not going to mean anything.

[BigBear]

Yes Bear.

Rgr, it's on the list.

[Tim K]

I won't get involved in this discussion except to say this in defense of the new law: Child molesters are psychologically unique in that they can not be rehabilitated. Whatever it is that goes on in their brains that causes them to lust for kids is hardwired and simply can not be undone. With a child molester, the question is not if they will molest again, it's when. Given opportunity, they will continue to hurt kids forever.

I'm no expert (but I know one), but to my knowledge this kind of compulsion is unique, or nearly unique to child molesters. In fact, the only recognized way to keep them from molesting again is chemical castration. The fact that some willingly choose to undergo this treatment to stop themselves speaks volumes about the power of the compulsion.

Knowing that, I can understand the motive for wanting to keep these perverts locked up. I leave it to the rest of you to decide if it's a good idea or not.

[iamhunter]

I won't get involved in this discussion except to say this in defense of the new law: Child molesters are psychologically unique in that they can not be rehabilitated. Whatever it is that goes on in their brains that causes them to lust for kids is hardwired and simply can not be undone. With a child molester, the question is not if they will molest again, it's when. Given opportunity, they will continue to hurt kids forever.

I'm no expert (but I know one), but to my knowledge this kind of compulsion is unique, or nearly unique to child molesters. In fact, the only recognized way to keep them from molesting again is chemical castration. The fact that some willingly choose to undergo this treatment to stop themselves speaks volumes about the power of the compulsion.

Knowing that, I can understand the motive for wanting to keep these perverts locked up. I leave it to the rest of you to decide if it's a good idea or not.

The law does not only apply to child molesters.

And not all those convicted of child molestation are necessarily guilty.

I've known convicted "sex offenders" (not necessarily child molesters) who were simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and got caught up in someone's attempt to extort them for money.

The point is the law violates constitutional rights.

And that is never ok, no matter what "greater good" is involved.

[Irving]

I won't get involved in this discussion except to say this in defense of the new law: Child molesters are psychologically unique in that they can not be rehabilitated. Whatever it is that goes on in their brains that causes them to lust for kids is hardwired and simply can not be undone. With a child molester, the question is not if they will molest again, it's when. Given opportunity, they will continue to hurt kids forever.



I'm going to save this and use this later on. Thanks.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Few lashes here, few flogging there, and a few physical and emotional scars later, most peeps in Singapore are very law abiding - ok.. almost too sheeple.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I won't get involved in this discussion except to say this in defense of the new law: Child molesters are psychologically unique in that they can not be rehabilitated. Whatever it is that goes on in their brains that causes them to lust for kids is hardwired and simply can not be undone. With a child molester, the question is not if they will molest again, it's when. Given opportunity, they will continue to hurt kids forever.

That's because.. a child molester in this country gets better treatment, food, and facilities than some of our troops fighting for their life in the field.

My 2 cent

[SA Friday]

I won't get involved in this discussion except to say this in defense of the new law: Child molesters are psychologically unique in that they can not be rehabilitated. Whatever it is that goes on in their brains that causes them to lust for kids is hardwired and simply can not be undone. With a child molester, the question is not if they will molest again, it's when. Given opportunity, they will continue to hurt kids forever.

I'm no expert (but I know one), but to my knowledge this kind of compulsion is unique, or nearly unique to child molesters. In fact, the only recognized way to keep them from molesting again is chemical castration. The fact that some willingly choose to undergo this treatment to stop themselves speaks volumes about the power of the compulsion.

Knowing that, I can understand the motive for wanting to keep these perverts locked up. I leave it to the rest of you to decide if it's a good idea or not.
Not all pedophiles are the same. Many never give up the compulsion, but a rare few can. Any expert that says all or nothing is vary rarely an expert.

Chemical castration also very rarely works... The data is out there.

Here's the problem with complex issues: none of the experts agree, the data doesn't point to an easy resolution, and common knowledge is not always right. In this case, sexual offenders are more than just ped's, and not all of the offenders are what I or psychologists would consider on the path to child predation or serial sexual offenders. I've seen it multiple times.

[Elhuero]

If someone is convicted, given a sentence, and serves that sentence, they should be released. PERIOD.

[clublights]

Like someone already said this law is for sex offenders not just child molesters.

Take this on for size.

In Colorado, if you take a leak in an alley you can end up as a sex offender.
yes you read that correctly. since you have to " expose" yourself to take said leak the cop can hit ya with exposing in public.. which ends you up on the sex offender list. oh sure you might only get a couple days in jail.. so you serve those then some paper pusher puts a hold on you till HE decides your ok to let out.

So Some 22 year old kid walking home from the bar stops to take a leak and ends up in jail till this guy decides to let him out.

Or YOU are out in the woods take a leak in front of the wrong person and BLAM your in the same situation.

That's SCAREY

There needs to be a judge and lawyers involved. Not some pencil pusher that doesn't really answer to anyone.

And My MAIN Point which some has missed. It's not the child pornographers or molesters or rapist's I'm worried about. heck I like the idea for THEM. the problem is ....... now there is case law and precedent for this to be applied to ANYTHING. Murder, Theft, Stealing Cable. ANYTHING.

[68Charger]

I won't get involved in this discussion except to say this in defense of the new law: Child molesters are psychologically unique in that they can not be rehabilitated. Whatever it is that goes on in their brains that causes them to lust for kids is hardwired and simply can not be undone. With a child molester, the question is not if they will molest again, it's when. Given opportunity, they will continue to hurt kids forever.

I'm no expert (but I know one), but to my knowledge this kind of compulsion is unique, or nearly unique to child molesters. In fact, the only recognized way to keep them from molesting again is chemical castration. The fact that some willingly choose to undergo this treatment to stop themselves speaks volumes about the power of the compulsion.

Knowing that, I can understand the motive for wanting to keep these perverts locked up. I leave it to the rest of you to decide if it's a good idea or not.

I'm no expert on the subject either, but I can't agree with this- anytime someone spouts absolutes, my BS meter goes full scale, and it sounds like this person has an axe to grind- and this subject certainly gets some peoples blood boiling. Even if it were true- change the sentencing in the first place, or place them on probation upon release, and when they violate the terms (go to the park and watch kids, but not report it to the PO), then you can put them back in jail & bring up new charges.

preemptively keeping them in jail because "you just KNOW" they're going to commit a crime is wrong.. I understand it's well-intentioned... remember that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

As a father of 4 children, I am bothered by the "Think of the children" political bag of tricks - they can pander to safety Nazi types to violate constitutional rights by using buzzwords & emotions... it's this mentality that leads to juries ignoring some facts because they get emotionally worked up about the crime, and less about the facts. For the sake of protecting them as children, they're willing to ruin this country for them when they grow up.

if you don't like the punishment that someone received for a crime, then change the punishment for that crime- and live with the mistake you didn't get it right the 1st time- do NOT use it as an excuse to turn this country into a police state. There are procedures and technology in place to keep tabs on individuals while on parole/probation- they have to keep a journal of when they encounter individuals under 18, and the circumstances.. if their PO finds them falsifying the journal, they can immediately issue a warrant for their arrest.