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

[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.