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

[clublights]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/...ex.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.