Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison

[IScreamSundays]

Source: WaPo

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" after their prison terms are complete.

The high court reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered "sexually dangerous."

"The statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.

President George W. Bush in 2006 signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates.

snip>

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051701283.html

[marmar]

1. What does "sexually dangerous" mean?

Seems rather vague.

[activa8tr]

2. Yes, a slippery slope. I agree.

[yurbud]

3. pedophiles who have a high probability of recidivism

[pattmarty]

18. How 'bout if you were "declared" sexually dangerous? I agree that............

.......CERTAIN types of sexual offenders have a high recidivism rate, but this is like declaring a minor "delinquent" and jailing him/her until they are 21. Ask me, I've been through that when I was 16 and a "runaway" a couple of times and was declared "delinquent".

[yurbud]

41. they could use this as the first step on the slippery slope, but if they specified pedophiles and

serial rapists, it would be a good thing.

[Alcibiades]

157. It does specify that

"`sexually dangerous person' means a person who has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation and who is sexually dangerous to others;"

Note, however, that some of the folks already certified include folks who have committed offenses against teens. While I don't have a problem with that, the statute also requires that the offender has a mental condition that would make it hard to refrain from such conduct in the future. Problem is, hebephilia is a bit of a controversial diagnosis in psychology.

There's also the question of "serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation" actually means. Currently, actuarials are being used, but the line isn't clear: is a 75% chance of reoffending good enough? What about 50%?

[Kolesar]

6. High heels are dangerous...eom

[elleng]

11. Probably spelled out in the statute.

As Justice Breyer wrote the Court's decision, I suspect many would conclude its reasonable. Will check.

[Alcibiades]

158. It is spelled out

See my post above.

[pattmarty]

17. You beat me to it, I was thinking exactly the same "vague" thing...........

..............This is the type of shit that leads to Soviet or fascist style regimes. If a law were to be written VERY SPECIFICALLY I might be able to go along with it, but this is extremely vague.

[msanthrope]

36. Mentally ill and a danger to others, n/t

[Alcibiades]

159. And that includes a diagnosis of pedophilia

That's pretty much who they are going after: diagnosed pedophiles. They are taking a "worst of the worst" approach, and have only referred 1% of those eligible for civil commitment.

But it could well be a slippery slope: now that the Court has ruled on Comstock, and because of the vagueness of the language, it may be that more will be referred. THe only break is that there simply isn't the budget or staff to deal with making the program much bigger.

[marshall]

55. Liable to infect the free population with disease?

Disease runs rampant in prison.

[Alcibiades]

160. No

The statute specifies sexually violent behavior or child molestation, not people with STDs.

[bemildred]

67. Sort of like "terrorist", kiss your human and Constitutional rights goodbye is what it means. nt

[harry_pothead]

72. That was my first response.

Am I sexually dangerous? Maybe not, maybe so. Depends on who you ask.

[bullwinkle428]

80. Public urination earned someone a spot on a registered sex offender

list! This was a story told to me by a co-worker about a friend of hers, so I can't make an ironclad confirmation, but she always seemed pretty trustworthy to me.

[Kolesar]

90. I saw that on a CBS news program

I think it was sixty minutes.

[msanthrope]

97. "I was just peeing" is a classic defense by exhibitionists....

And it never ceases to amaze me just how many times these guys feel the need to urinate in public....

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. Should "exhibitionism" be grounds for forever detention? n/t

[msanthrope]

103. Explain to me how that would happen under this federal statute. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. It's your contention, not mine.

You defended the idea that public peeing might justifiably earn a person a spot on a sexually dangerous offender list.

The way it works in Washington state, offenders get locked up until a committee decides they want to take the personal risk of releasing you, and accept the legal liability. Unsurprisingly, as far as I know, that has never happened.

[msanthrope]

110. I think you are confusing me with someone else....I merely

noted an oft-used excuse of exhibitionists as to why their genitals needed airing.

[madmusic]

106. You don't understand the law.

"Importantly, the inmate need not be in BOP custody for anything to do with a
sex crime and need not have ever been convicted of a sex crime." (p. 3)

http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/Adam.Walsh.III.REV.9.24.07.FINAL.pdf

So, for example, if a bank robber is a jailhouse lawyer and helped other inmates file habeas petitions, the BOP can comb his record and possibly find a reason to civilly commit him hours before his release from prison.

[msanthrope]

111. You are quoting (incompletely) an opinion of a defense attorney, not the law.

Unsurprisingly, you forgot the following sentence after your quote:

"While everyone currently facing a certification does have at least one sex-related conviction (often under state law), such convictions are not a prerequisite."

So, in fact, you have failed to cite a single actual case that supports your hypo.

Interestingly, neither you or the Federal Defenders cite a single case of mistaken certification. Not a single one in the 46 that have been issued....which is why the FD had to argue the CC and the N&P. Not a great argument.

But, let's go back to your jailhouse lawyer. Please explain to me exactly how he qualifies as a "sexually dangerous person?"


Not for anything, but federal civil confinement has been on the books since the 1940s--the Adam Walsh Act is a small expansion of that law.

[madmusic]

114. need not be in custody for ... (or) ever been convicted of a sex crime.

That is from an exact quote. You ignore the qualifier in the sentence you quote: "such convictions are not a prerequisite." And ignore the rest of the paragraph.

"As discussed in Part IV, infra, the
statute requires only that the person have “engaged or attempted to engage” in sexually
violent conduct or child molestation; a criminal conviction or charge is not required. See
18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(5). BOP recently confirmed that it will consider all “evidence” of
sexually violent conduct or child molestation from any source, “whether or not a
conviction resulted, and whether or not the person’s present custody is based on the
conduct in question.” See 72 Fed. Reg. at 43207. Of the 46 people with pending
sexually dangerous certifications, approximately 9 were in BOP custody for child
pornography convictions and another 4 were in custody for offenses entirely unrelated to
sex. Of those 4, none had ever been convicted of a federal sex offense."

I never claimed anyone committed so far did not have a conviction (state or federal), but only pointed out the theoretical possibility that our bank robber could be committed if the BOP doesn't like him. Which is true. And that commitment could be based on an accusation, not a conviction.

And you approve.

[msanthrope]

120. Again--tell me how your bank robber becomes "sexually dangerous."

Specifically, what has he done that makes him "sexually dangerous?"

And I do not ignore the clause "such convictions are not a prerequisite."

Of course you don't need a conviction of sexual offenses---this is a civil confinement.

But again, your bank robber needs to be determined to be "sexually dangerous."

What has he done to merit that?

(FYI, if you read the memo you cited, the FD does make an excellent point regarding that the standard of proof and evidence used is in fact, below BRD, and even preponderance....I wonder if they should have made that argument at SCOTUS.)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that this law COULD be abused, just merely asking you to cite an ACTUAL case of it. The FD could not.


But here's a hypo for you---let's say you have a Catholic priest in custody for fraud. The BOP later finds out that there is a massive file kept by the Church on this molesting bastard. Settlements, but no convictions. The prison psychiatrists do their job, and realize this asshole never changed, just got moved from place to place....

So, does BOP not act because there are no criminal convictions--no BRD? Or do they follow the statute?

[madmusic]

130. In other words, if really, really evil, should we waive the Bill of Rights?

Some people think so, but I think the greater the loss of liberty at stake, the more important the Bill of Rights afforded in trials.

Again, this opens the door to a great big slippery slope. It was once criminal to to burn the flag.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/p/flagburning.htm

Perhaps flag burners are "patriotically dangerous" and should be civilly committed.

[msanthrope]

136. In other words, you can't tell me how this law would do what you claim it will do.

As I said, tell me how your bank robber gets certified "sexually dangerous."

Now, can you tell me how your flag-burner does?

I get what you are saying about slippery slope, but you possibly cite a single, actual case?

And keep in mind--you have 60-plus years of federal jurisprudence, because federal civil confinement has been around since the 40s.

[msanthrope]

137. In other words, you can't tell me how this law would do what you claim it will do.

As I said, tell me how your bank robber gets certified "sexually dangerous."

Now, can you tell me how your flag-burner does?

I get what you are saying about slippery slope, but you possibly cite a single, actual case?

And keep in mind--you have 60-plus years of federal jurisprudence, because federal civil confinement has been around since the 40s.

[Alcibiades]

163. A federal sex offense

State offenses are also eligible.

[madmusic]

117. BTW, ignoring the defense bar is like watching FOXNEWS.

Even the court's opinion does not have such blind faith.

"We do not reach or decide any claim that the statute or its application denies equal protection of the laws, procedural or substantive due process, or any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondents are free to pursue those claims on remand, and any others they have preserved."

[msanthrope]

121. I'm not ignoring my brethren---but read that quote again.

I read it as, "Guys, you tried arguing the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause? Come on! You are the FD!"

It's also pretty standard language--it forecloses the government from arguing that that all DP issues were addressed. Clearly, they were not.

[Alcibiades]

162. You are dead on

This has been a strange case that was ineptly argued by the Bush DoJ.

[Alcibiades]

161. No, it's not

But, if an offender had a record of exhibitionism in prison, it probably would not help his chances before the panel.

[Alcibiades]

156. Here's the statutory language

TITLE III--CIVIL COMMITMENT OF DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDERS

SEC. 301. <<NOTE: 42 USC 16971.>> JIMMY RYCE STATE CIVIL COMMITMENT
PROGRAMS FOR SEXUALLY DANGEROUS PERSONS.

(a) Grants Authorized.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Attorney General shall make grants to jurisdictions for

<[Page 120 STAT. 618>]

the purpose of establishing, enhancing, or operating effective civil
commitment programs for sexually dangerous persons.
(b) Limitation.--The Attorney General shall not make any grant under
this section for the purpose of establishing, enhancing, or operating
any transitional housing for a sexually dangerous person in or near a
location where minors or other vulnerable persons are likely to come
into contact with that person.
(c) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a jurisdiction shall, before the expiration of the
compliance period--
(A) have established a civil commitment program for
sexually dangerous persons that is consistent with
guidelines issued by the Attorney General; or
(B) submit a plan for the establishment of such a
program.
(2) Compliance period.--The <<NOTE: Expiration
date. Extension.>> compliance period referred to in paragraph
(1) expires on the date that is 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act. However, the Attorney General may, on a
case-by-case basis, extend the compliance period that applies to
a jurisdiction if the Attorney General considers such an
extension to be appropriate.
(3) Release notice.--
(A) Each civil commitment program for which funding
is required under this section shall require the
issuance of timely notice to a State official
responsible for considering whether to pursue civil
commitment proceedings upon the impending release of any
person incarcerated by the State who--
(i) has been convicted of a sexually violent
offense; or
(ii) has been deemed by the State to be at
high risk for recommitting any sexual offense
against a minor.
(B) The program shall further require that upon
receiving notice under subparagraph (A), the State
official shall consider whether or not to pursue a civil
commitment proceeding, or any equivalent proceeding
required under State law.

(d) Attorney General Reports.--Not later than January 31 of each
year, beginning with 2008, the Attorney General shall submit to the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the progress of
jurisdictions in implementing this section and the rate of sexually
violent offenses for each jurisdiction.
(e) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) The term ``civil commitment program'' means a program
that involves--
(A) secure civil confinement, including appropriate
control, care, and treatment during such confinement;
and
(B) appropriate supervision, care, and treatment for
individuals released following such confinement.
(2) The term ``sexually dangerous person'' means a person
suffering from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or
disorder, as a result of which the individual would have serious
difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child
molestation.

<[Page 120 STAT. 619>]

(3) The term ``jurisdiction'' has the meaning given such
term in section 111.

(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2010.

SEC. 302. JIMMY RYCE CIVIL COMMITMENT PROGRAM.

Chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the chapter analysis--
(A) in the item relating to section 4241, by
inserting ``or to undergo postrelease proceedings''
after ``trial''; and
(B) by inserting at the end the following:

``4248. Civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person'';

(2) in section 4241--
(A) in the heading, by inserting or ``to undergo
postrelease proceedings'' after ``trial'';
(B) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by
inserting ``or at any time after the commencement of
probation or supervised release and prior to the
completion of the sentence,'' after ``defendant,'';
(C) in subsection (d)--
(i) by striking ``trial to proceed'' each
place it appears and inserting ``proceedings to go
forward''; and
(ii) by striking ``section 4246'' and
inserting ``sections 4246 and 4248''; and
(D) in subsection (e)--
(i) by inserting ``or other proceedings''
after ``trial''; and
(ii) by striking ``chapter 207'' and inserting
``chapters 207 and 227'';
(3) in section 4247--
(A) by striking ``, or 4246'' each place it appears
and inserting ``, 4246, or 4248'';
(B) in subsections (g) and (i), by striking ``4243
or 4246'' each place it appears and inserting ``4243,
4246, or 4248'';
(C) in subsection (a)--
(i) by amending subparagraph (1)(C) to read as
follows:
``(C) drug, alcohol, and sex offender treatment
programs, and other treatment programs that will assist
the individual in overcoming a psychological or physical
dependence or any condition that makes the individual
dangerous to others; and'';
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at
the end;
(iii) in paragraph (3), by striking the period
at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(iv) by inserting at the end the following:
``(4) `bodily injury' includes sexual abuse;
``(5) `sexually dangerous person' means a person who has
engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or
child molestation and who is sexually dangerous to others; and
``(6) `sexually dangerous to others' with respect a person,
means that the person suffers from a serious mental illness,
abnormality, or disorder as a result of which he would have

<[Page 120 STAT. 620>]

serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct
or child molestation if released.'';
(D) in subsection (b), by striking ``4245 or 4246''
and inserting ``4245, 4246, or 4248'';
(E) in subsection (c)(4)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E)
as subparagraphs (E) and (F) respectively; and
(ii) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the
following:
``(D) if the examination is ordered under section
4248, whether the person is a sexually dangerous
person;''; and
(F) in subsections (e) and (h)--
(i) by striking ``hospitalized'' each place it
appears and inserting ``committed''; and
(ii) by striking ``hospitalization'' each
place it appears and inserting ``commitment'' ;
and
(4) by inserting at the end the following:

``Sec. 4248. Civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person

``(a) Institution of Proceedings.--In relation to a person who is in
the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, or who has been committed to the
custody of the Attorney General pursuant to section 4241(d), or against
whom all criminal charges have been dismissed solely for reasons
relating to the mental condition of the person, the Attorney General or
any individual authorized by the Attorney General or the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons may certify that the person is a sexually dangerous
person, and transmit the certificate to the clerk of the court for the
district in which the person is confined. The clerk shall send a copy of
the certificate to the person, and to the attorney for the Government,
and, if the person was committed pursuant to section 4241(d), to the
clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The court shall order a
hearing to determine whether the person is a sexually dangerous person.
A certificate filed under this subsection shall stay the release of the
person pending completion of procedures contained in this section.
``(b) Psychiatric or Psychological Examination and Report.--Prior to
the date of the hearing, the court may order that a psychiatric or
psychological examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a
psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to
the provisions of section 4247(b) and (c).
``(c) Hearing.--The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the
provisions of section 4247(d).
``(d) Determination and Disposition.--If, after the hearing, the
court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a
sexually dangerous person, the court shall commit the person to the
custody of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall release the
person to the appropriate official of the State in which the person is
domiciled or was tried if such State will assume responsibility for his
custody, care, and treatment. The Attorney General shall make all
reasonable efforts to cause such a State to assume such responsibility.
If, notwithstanding such efforts, neither such State will assume such
responsibility, the Attorney General shall place the person for
treatment in a suitable facility, until--
``(1) such a State will assume such responsibility; or

<[Page 120 STAT. 621>]

``(2) the person's condition is such that he is no longer
sexually dangerous to others, or will not be sexually dangerous
to others if released under a prescribed regimen of medical,
psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment;

whichever is earlier.
``(e) Discharge.--When the Director of the facility in which a
person is placed pursuant to subsection (d) determines that the person's
condition is such that he is no longer sexually dangerous to others, or
will not be sexually dangerous to others if released under a prescribed
regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, he
shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the
court that ordered the commitment. The clerk shall send a copy of the
certificate to the person's counsel and to the attorney for the
Government. The court shall order the discharge of the person or, on
motion of the attorney for the Government or on its own motion, shall
hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d),
to determine whether he should be released. If, after the hearing, the
court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person's
condition is such that--
``(1) he will not be sexually dangerous to others if
released unconditionally, the court shall order that he be
immediately discharged; or
``(2) he will not be sexually dangerous to others if
released under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or
psychological care or treatment, the court shall--
``(A) order that he be conditionally discharged
under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or
psychological care or treatment that has been prepared
for him, that has been certified to the court as
appropriate by the Director of the facility in which he
is committed, and that has been found by the court to be
appropriate; and
``(B) order, as an explicit condition of release,
that he comply with the prescribed regimen of medical,
psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.
The court at any time may, after a hearing employing the same
criteria, modify or eliminate the regimen of medical,
psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.

``(f) Revocation of Conditional Discharge.--
The <<NOTE: Notification.>> director of a facility responsible for
administering a regimen imposed on a person conditionally discharged
under subsection (e) shall notify the Attorney General and the court
having jurisdiction over the person of any failure of the person to
comply with the regimen. Upon such notice, or upon other probable cause
to believe that the person has failed to comply with the prescribed
regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, the
person may be arrested, and, upon arrest, shall be taken without
unnecessary delay before the court having jurisdiction over
him. <<NOTE: Courts.>> The court shall, after a hearing, determine
whether the person should be remanded to a suitable facility on the
ground that he is sexually dangerous to others in light of his failure
to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or
psychological care or treatment.

``(g) Release to State of Certain Other Persons.--If the director of
the facility in which a person is hospitalized or placed pursuant to
this chapter certifies to the Attorney General that a person, against
whom all charges have been dismissed for reasons

<[Page 120 STAT. 622>]

not related to the mental condition of the person, is a sexually
dangerous person, the Attorney General shall release the person to the
appropriate official of the State in which the person is domiciled or
was tried for the purpose of institution of State proceedings for civil
commitment. If neither such State will assume such responsibility, the
Attorney General shall release the person upon receipt of notice from
the State that it will not assume such responsibility, but not later
than 10 days after certification by the director of the facility.''.

[ck4829]

4. Has a lot to do with the issue of competence, kind of like the insanity defense

If a person is declared to be too insane to stand trial, it's not like that person is let back out onto the streets.

Likewise, this says if a court finds someone who was found guilty of rape, child molestation, etc. and at the same time is unable to understand what he did wrong or there is a good chance he may do it again. He must stay in prison (Or a psychiatric facility) until he is found that he understands what he did wrong, and he can request to show that he knows what he did was wrong every 6 months.

[ixion]

5. This is how police states are born

One step at a time. First it was "terrorists," then "enemy combatants" and now "sexually dangerous" (which could mean anyone with AIDS).

They will continue to expand their power to indefinitely "detain" (sic) anyone as long as We, the People continue to allow it.

[Dinger]

7. I Had That Thought As Well (nt)

[Kolesar]

8. That's where the Soviet dictators put their dissidents

In a "mental hospital". I read a lot of Solzhenitsyn.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

82. That's what I was thinking of - "mental hospital".

[Poll_Blind]

24. +1 for your comment. Very true. n/t

PB

[msanthrope]

31. Of course, we've had a federal confinement law on the books since the 1940s----

this particular section expands to include sex crimes.

Not for anything, but federal habeas still applies.

[kestrel91316]

49. Don't be melodramatic. No one is proposing indefinite detention

of people with AIDS.

Pedophilic predators who cannot or will not control their behavior, that's another thing entirely. Society has the right to protect its weakest and most vulnerable.

[ixion]

60. That they propose it for ANYONE is an abomination

and has nothing whatsoever to do with an open, free society. That is the point, not WHO they're doing it to now.

[msanthrope]

71. Mentally ill people who are a danger to others should be confined. n/t

[Juche]

108. And the slippery slope begins

Mentally ill people should be locked up w/o constitutional protections?

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/40/17/16.full

Comparing national criminal-justice figures with those for an urban sample of mentally ill persons shows that they are more likely to be victims of violent crime than is the general population.
Previous SectionNext Section

More than one-fourth of persons with severe mental illness are victims of violent crime in the course of a year, a rate 11 times higher than that of the general population, according to a study by researchers at Northwestern University.

They estimated that nearly 3 million severely mentally ill people are crime victims each year in the United States.

Victimization rates vary with the type of violent crime, said the researchers. People with mental illness were eight times more likely to be robbed, 15 times more likely to be assaulted, and 23 times more likely to be raped than was the general population. Theft of property from persons, rare in the general population at 0.2 percent, happens to 21 percent of mentally ill persons, or 140 times as often. Even theft of minor items from victims can increase their anxiety and worsen psychiatric symptoms, the researchers said.







Mentally ill people are victims of crime, not perpetrators. Aside from being victims of an inept medical system, street crime and their own illness many are also victims of horrific social prejudice.

[msanthrope]

127. Tell me how Mr. Crawford is locked up w/o constitutional protections?

Seriously, can you point to the part in the statute that denies him habeas, or periodic review? Mr. Crawford just had a hearing in front of SCOTUS, and, as another poster pointed out, still has DP claims available to him per the opinion.

Guess what? Mr. Comstock's victims, are actually victims, not him. You might want to read up on what he actually did before you tell me he's not a 'perpetrator.'

[Juche]

129. You said "Mentally ill people who are a danger to others should be confined. n/t"

The majority of mentally ill people are crime victims more than perpetrators.

Unless by 'mentally ill' you mean sex offenders who have no remorse. But the simple fact that you equate the mentally ill with remorseless sex offenders shows that this law has the potential to be a slippery slope that targets endless groups of social misfits. Like others have said, uppity women and gays were considered sexual deviants not long ago.

All I can find on Comstock is a 37 month sentence for possession of child pornography. While a crime, that is a far cry from a sociopathic serial predator.

Either way, the fact that you keep saying 'mentally ill people need to be locked up' is disturbing.


Also why does this law not apply to serial burglars, serial arsonists, or serial anything else? That alone shows it is a form of moral panic.

According to this the government has only labeled 1% of convicted sex offenders as sexually dangerous. However it seems like it will get looser and looser. Things like streaking or sleeping with a 17 year old gets you on sex offender registries as it is. And nobody is going to stand up for sex offenders. So the standards will likely constantly get looser over time over what is a sex offender or sexually dangerous.

http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/category/sex_offender_registry


By contrast, the government argues it has identified only 105 prisoners as "sexually dangerous" -- a tiny fraction among the 15,000 federal prisoners with a history of sexual violence or child molestation.

[msanthrope]

138. Comstock is a violent serial predator----grade school guidance counselor

who was convicted of 2 counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child......then the federal porn charge.

Now, his current defense attorneys may not highlight those facts, but if you are seriously going to argue that Comstock is a victim you might try google before you decide he is not a predator.....

All you can find is a child porn possession charge? You think possession of child porn by a guy who works with children isn't a big deal?


Mentally ill people who are a danger to others should be confined.

Again, show me precisely where Mr. Comstock was locked up without constitutional protection.

[Juche]

141. I don't think possession of CP deserves a life sentence

I did google his name, hence finding out about the federal child porn charge. However I couldn't find info on previous or other convictions for assaults on children. However I'll take your word for it that he did assault children.

Also keep in mind that one of the tools people who use child pornography use is to hijack another person's computer and use it as a server for providing CP to other pedophiles. So you could be guilty of distributing CP right now and not even know it. I'm not saying in any way that that is what happened with Comstock, but I am saying that this attempt to lock people up for life is probably going to catch a few people like that too.


"Mentally ill people who are a danger to others should be confined."

Why do you keep saying mentally ill?



Recidivism is something that happens for released prisoners. My question is why are they only focusing on sex offenders? There are many burglars, thieves, arsonists, people who have committed assaults, etc being released from prison who will commit more crimes. Why only focus on the sex offenders? That alone shows that moral panic plays a role in this situation. And moral panics don't end up good.

[msanthrope]

142. He got three years for aggravated indecent liberties with a child (x2)

and three for the possession charge. He was a grade school guidance counselor.

It took me 10 seconds to find this---


"The man named in U.S. v. Comstock is now 67. Comstock initially was convicted on two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. He also pleaded guilty to federal charges of possessing child pornography.

After serving three years in Kansas, Comstock was transferred to a federal prison. Six days before the end of his 37-month pornography sentence, the attorney general certified Comstock as sexually dangerous."

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/17/1952814_us-can-indefinitely-hold-sex-offenders.html?storylink=omni_popular#ixzz0oKUhm73P

Now, could you point to the part of the statute that says that he isn't entitled to review and habeas?

Why do I keep saying mentally ill? Because this statute allows for the civil commitment of the mentally ill that have been adjudged "sexually dangerous." Do you think pedos aren't mentally ill?

[sui generis]

124. what about if they're a danger to themselves?

How do you know if that danger is situational, temporal or permanent? Street wisdom? The completely politically and carthatically unbiased reliability and authority of the judiciary?

Miss Anthrope, I think you're on the wrong side of this argument and you seem to be flailing about a bit.

Was this the only possible solution? Is it the best possible solution? It's clearly not, and if it's not, then why focus on this as the method requiring your tireless defense of a mere half of the SCOTUS?

[msanthrope]

128. If they are a danger to themselves then that supports civil confinement, right?

Interestingly enough, Comstock never challenged the findings of his certification....that he is an unrehabilitated child molester is undisputed.

If you have a better answer than Butner, then I suggest you contact the BOP and let them know just where this former school counselor, convicted of violent crimes against children and child porn possession, should be.

[sui generis]

131. I'm focused on the process, not the individual

like a damn hay ride in here, there's so much straw flying around.

[msanthrope]

133. Which is why you ought to read the statute, and tell me which

part of the process you don't like.

from the start, you've refrained from discussing the actual statute---which defines the process.

And I have no doubt you're focused on process, and not the individual--since it's taken you the whole thread to realize that Mr. Comstock is in custody for a lot more than possession of child porn...

[Alcibiades]

165. We're not really talking about the mentally ill

Pedophiles.

[AnOhioan]

145. +1000

[dickthegrouch]

86. Put the whole catholic church in jail for life!

then perhaps the rest of can have some real peace.

[Alcibiades]

164. Sexually dangerous is specified

"sexually dangerous to others' with respect a person, means that the person suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder as a result of which he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released."

If they had meant that the person had an STD, that's what the statute would have said.

[sui generis]

9. are we still in America?

WTF?

"indefinitely hold" based on a federal official's discretion.

Wow.

Either the SCOTUS believes in the rule of law or they don't. This is the rule of discretion, -- not at all the same thing.

[msanthrope]

33. A judge, you mean.

You might try reading the statute...

[sui generis]

50. oh okay. special statutes for special people.

and your point was . . . ?

I'm not defending sexual predators but I'm even less a fan of discretion in the judiciary. Call me old fashioned but the law should apply equally to all people, period. If you can't find a diagnosis in the DSM for "sexually dangerous" then it doesn't belong in a statutory reference.

[msanthrope]

58. the law does apply equally, for all people. Tell me how Equal Protection is violated here?

"Sexually dangerous" isn't a medical term--it's a legal conclusion. Why would the DSM define it?

[sui generis]

95. If you want to keep someone in prison for being mentally ill

the DSM had damn well better define that illness.

I'm curious why you are such a big defender of judicial discretion? If someone commits a crime there are laws that govern restitution and punishment.

Punishing someone for mental illness by continuing to use the penal institution after they have served their criminal conviction is morally absurd and wrong.

I am immovable in that - I do know right from wrong unlike some people here.

[msanthrope]

102. The DSM doesn't define pedophilia? Other disorders?

If you read the statute, you might understand that the determination "sexually dangerous" is a legal conclusion, not a medical one. It wouldn't be in the DSM, because it is a legal conclusion drawn after the prisoner's underlying mental health issues are identified.

Next, kindly prove your assertion that the federal facility where Mr. Comstock is currently being held does not have psychiatric facilities, and that Mr. Comstock, et.al. are being confined to the general population of a prison....and not the psychiatric/medical wing, pursuant to the statute.

BOP put him at Butner--you want to make the argument that that is not an appropriate placement for him???? Even his attorneys didn't argue that.

You aren't seriously suggesting that Mr. Comstock should be put with civilians, in an inpatient facility, are you?

Mr. Comstock apparently isn't contesting the fact that has been found unable to restrain himself from whacking off to child pornography....you see, he isn't contesting the facts of his certification.

[sui generis]

109. Yes, I am seriously suggesting that.

What the hell? Dear street lawyer, I know you are this thread's resident Wiki Genius(TM), but there are many more types of treatment facilities than there are types of prisons.

Quite frankly I'm disgusted with your support of this - "danger" being a legal finding? What the hell?
That means absolutely nothing more than it's rubberstamped by someone in authority without oversight from the very organizations that define and treat mental illness.

That IS mental illness, and definitely a sickness in our judiciary and legal system.

[msanthrope]

113. What did the non-criminal mentally ill ever do to deserve being housed

with the likes of Graydon Comstock?

[sui generis]

115. well typically they aren't housed together.

get a clue.

[msanthrope]

119. right--the criminally mentally ill are housed in facilities like Butner,

where Mr. Comstock currently resides.

So BOP did the right thing, didn't they?

[sui generis]

123. no they didn't.

Extending an original sentence indefinitely is not the right thing. I have not wavered.

[msanthrope]

126. It's not an extension of sentence--it's civil confinement of an un rehabilitated child molester.

You may think that a false dichotomy, but that's not what the law says.

Mr. Comstock is, arguably, exactly where he should be---as a former grade school counselor who was convicted of 2 counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and receipt of child pornography, Butner, and not society is precisely where he needs to rehabilitate himself.

Interestingly, not a single representative of Mr. Comstock argues that he is rehabilitated.

[sui generis]

132. I was talking about SCOTUS support of the decision

You're off in the weeds madame.

[msanthrope]

139. Right--because defending Mr. Comstock himself has become difficult, seeing

as you finally figured out that he's in custody for more than possession of child porn.

Again, and I've asked you repeatedly, what part of the actual statute do you disagree with?

Or are you seriously going to argue that Mr. Comstock does not belong in Butner? That he deserves to walk?

[sui generis]

150. and I've asked you repeatedly

to say what part of the dissenting opinion you disagree with, and you repeatedly evade.

Have a good day Msthing - I'm a little disappointed in you on this topic.

[msanthrope]

153. Actually, this is the first time you've

Mentioned the dissent, or in fact, any substantive issue mentioned in the ruling.

There is not a single part of the dissent I find compelling. Had you asked that from the begining, or simply read my posts on this thread, you would know that.

As you mentioned, you are concerned with process. Which process argument does the dissent outline that you agree with?

[Alcibiades]

166. They did

They have their own unit. They are specifically not to be treated as inmates, and are essentially a new category of inmate.

[Alcibiades]

167. But is the judge really doing the certification?

I had read something about some sort of panel....

[Jennicut]

10. Why not have a longer prison sentence to begin with?

That would avoid this, wouldn't it?

[IScreamSundays]

16. In California for instance...

If a sexually violent predator is deemed to still be a threat by the corrections mental health department they are released to a state hospital instead of being released on parole.

[msanthrope]

35. No. You don't get a prison sentence for being mentally ill.

You get confined when you are a danger to others.

[Jennicut]

47. One could argue it is a thin line between true mental illness

and just an addiction which one does not want to control. I have a degree in psych and have worked with some people who had some very serious mental illness...like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder. People hearing voices, seeing things, going in and out of reality. Being a pedophile is a mental illness? To a certain degree maybe in the compulsive behavior that is hard to control. I think it is a good question and perhaps they may be better off in psychiatric care then a prison where they might not get any treatment.

[Are_grits_groceries]

12. Pedophiles should serve very long prison sentences.

However, this is another vague phrasing of a law that invites overreaction.

Pedophiles can't be cured and are extremely dangerous. However, the determination of those who should remain jailed could ensnare those who unqualified officials deem to a threat.

Laws need to be changed, and the penalities need to be made much longer for a lot of types of conduct. People are unlikely to question the problem of anyone who is caught up in this law who shouldn't be or who deserves a hearing on this matter.

[ProSense]

13. "The ruling was 7-2, with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissent."

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court said Monday that the federal government can keep "sexually dangerous" prisoners in custody past the completion of their sentences, overruling arguments that only states hold such power.

The ruling was 7-2, with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissent.

In the sex offender case, writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress could authorize the civil commitment of these offenders under its constitutional authority to enact laws "necessary and proper" to the exercise of its specific powers. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority opinion. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito each wrote separately, endorsing the result but reaching it through different reasoning.

More than 20 states have laws permitting "civil commitment" of prisoners deemed sexually violent or otherwise mentally ill after they have served sentences for specific crimes. In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorizes the Justice Department to similarly hold federal prisoners who are nearing release or were found mentally incompetent for trial.

more

[customerserviceguy]

64. I figured it would make a few heads around here explode

when I saw that Scalia and Thomas were the only dissenters. And if they didn't have a federalism problem with this, it would have been unanimous.

Sex offenders seem to get way more understanding around here than any place else I visit on the Internet. I routinely get bashed when I call for the DP for the worst of the worst. To my detractors: How does it feel to know that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonya Sotomayor, John Paul Stevens, and Steven Breyer all agree that there are some sex offenders who are simply irredeemable?

[harry_pothead]

73. I agree with the DP for child molesters, but

the phrase "sexually dangerous" is beyond fucking vague. It wasn't long ago that they called gays and rebellious women "sexually dangerous."

[customerserviceguy]

81. At this point in time

we've pretty much eliminated misunderstood sexual minorities from that list. Unless you think there's one or two groups who still have that definition hung around their necks?

Maybe old-fart polygamists out in the Southwest are mislabeled that way, but I really can't think of any other category besides the openly violent sexual offenders who are universally considered "sexually dangerous". There are precise definitions, and everyone who gets labeled as such has full rights to hearings to determine such status.

[Juche]

125. Now it is the mentally ill

Pretty much anyone who threatens the social order is going to get caught up in this.

I'd also like to point out that 90%+ of sex criminals are never caught. The truly dangerous ones are walking around free under the radar, still abusing people.

[harry_pothead]

147. That's because they abuse their own family members.

The cops and prosecutors are all over the 22 year old who hooks up with a 15 year old on myspace, but they could care less about the guy who sexually abuses his own 7 year old daughter/niece

[Alcibiades]

168. The actual statutory language os more specific

sexually dangerous to others' with respect a person, means that the person suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder as a result of which he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.

This has been operationalized to use actuarial data on reoffense rates.

[wickerwoman]

87. I don't think you can simplify it to that extent.

1.) It's not about being understanding of sex offenders. I'm sure I hate them as much as anybody.

2.) I also agree that they are almost certainly irredeemable. That's not really the issue.

Having that much in common, and having spent a significant amount of time in my life living in a police state:

3.) I don't believe the state should have the power to execute people. Any people. Nations should not have power of life and death over their own citizens.

4.) I'd be extremely, extremely cautious about the idea of "indefinite detention". I'm not absolutely against it on principle, but we'd have to ask what the burden of proof would have to be, what method of review would be used, who would have the power to order this, etc., why it is necessary when the option of life without parole already exists.

I'm not "understanding" of sex offenders. I'm understanding of any potentially innocent person caught up in the justice system, as were the founding fathers.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Scalia and Thomas only two Justices to dissent from this decision

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying Congress can only pass laws that deal with the federal powers listed in the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution "expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the federal government with such a power," Thomas said.

Thomas was joined in part on his dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051701283.html

[MessiahRp]

19. I can't even express how insane it is that those two were the ones that seem the most rational

in this ruling...

Nobody likes sexual predators or sympathizes with them at all but frankly then that is up to the judge sentencing them to give them a harsher sentence rather than to let a parole board keep them indefinitely.

Not to mention there are (believe it or not) shades of grey when it comes to whether or not someone is truly a sexual predator when they are actually charged with a sexual assault crime that forces them to be on the registry or puts them in jail long term for this.

Cases like the 19 year old boyfriend who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and the girlfriend's parents want him to go away (this happens more than you might think).

Or I have a friend who made the simple mistake of not kicking a neighborhood friend out of his drinking party because they had been friends for years and he brought with him a soon to be 16 year old girl who went in the room when my friend (just turned 21) passed out and he woke up and she was trying to give him oral. He stopped her immediately and sent her home. She went home, wrote about it in her diary and her parents had the DA throw the book at him (they absolutely refused to think their daughter was sexually active on her own or that she was anything other than sexually innocent). He's going to have been on the registry for 20 years when he finally gets off of it in 2019. How ridiculous is that?

For hardcore cases I agree, these people are a threat then sentence them initially in that way.

However we sort of need to reform the laws to give leeway to address the shades of grey as well as punish the worst cases in a harder fashion. Our inclination as a society is just to punish harder and harder without allowing for the correct punishment that fits the crime to be available for these judges.

Rp

[depakid]

20. You might want to read the grounds for Thomas' dissent before you call it "rational"

[elleng]

23. So glad you agree with their opinions

:sarcasm:


which appear to be based on FEDERALISM issues, NOT on the merits. Waiting to read the decision in its entirety is usually a pretty good idea, before jumping.

[Lance_Boyle]

99. Sorry to say, the dissenters have a valid point on the Federalism angle, too.

These are STATE statutes to which the feds are tacking on indefinite detention. If Thomas and Scalia's only problem with this is that it should fall to the states and not the feds then it is too bad they don't see the Amendment violations in it. But they are correct to point out the fed v state law issue.

[elleng]

101. As is usually the case with the Court,

dissenters on any issue, in any decision, are correct to point out the 'issues.' I love this system; its so civil!

Decision has 'enabled' extended detention as contemplated by the statute, right? In certain circumstances, right? When thoroughly examined, right? Of course, its up to PEOPLE to comply; there's the rub!

:hi:

[Unvanguard]

134. No, they are federal statutes. Federal prisoners, federal statutes.

And any state that wants to take responsibility, can. But they don't. (Why would they? It costs a lot.)

[DeSwiss]

29. What's worse.....

...is the "icky" feeling you get knowing you agree with them.

[msanthrope]

32. You might try reading Thomas's dissent--which calls for hamstringing Congress

by restricting the Nec&Prop clause.........

[harry_pothead]

74. Yes, and that's the problem.

The sex offender registry is filled to the brink with bullshit cases that only about 10% of them are actual child predators.

[Unvanguard]

69. ...because the decision had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with civil liberties

as many of the posters in this thread are apparently ignoring entirely.

[herbm]

15. preditors

Preditors are evil. That said, we have a bill of rights that allows for due process. Arbitrary punishiment is not due process whether we hate/fear an individual or not. Punishment of a class of individuals is just plain wrong. Either we are a free society or we are not. This is the exception to the exception rule. There can be no exceptions to the rights we own under the Constitution. Any exception is the starting line of the slippery slope mentioned above.

[msanthrope]

39. Tell me how habeas does not apply. Show me how either due process is

violated, or how the punishment is arbitrary.

Tell me how the confinement of mentally ill persons who are a danger to others is violative of the Constitution....

[sui generis]

53. confining them in prison you mean?

need I add to that?

[msanthrope]

56. Yes. You need to add to that. Explain to me how this detention is

violative of the Constitution.

Specifically.

[sui generis]

92. Why?

Are you continuing an argument with someone else?

It's disgusting - that's my opinion, and I'm against it as un-progressive and un-American, no constitution required.

"violative" good one. Street lawyers untie!

[msanthrope]

96. Can't explain it, then? You just 'feel' it's wrong?

I find governance from 'feelings' rather than law to be un-progressive and un-American, but that's me.

It's a SCOTUS decision. Is it too much to ask that you actually use law in your arguments?

[sui generis]

107. please go bow and scrape before authority yourself.

I am not a goatherder or an 18th century colonial. You "find" is better than the word you put in my mouth: "feel"? I'm telling you I have a moral compass, clearly unlike you. And yes it most certainly overrides the half of the SCOTUS in their SPLIT decision that you mindlessly agree with. I despise authoritarians in any form or guise, but more than that the penal system is not the place for treating mental illness, and arbitrary and highly interpretive definitions of "danger" are not a basis for governance either.

As I said, I am immovable on this. If one commits a crime, one should be punished for the crime in accordance with the character of the crime, not the character of the defendant. California's three-strikes law is just as absurd for exactly the same reason.

People are horrible judges of character, which is why we use the DSM to measure variance from a range of acceptable human behavior, not some nitwit characterization of "danger".

vuh.

[msanthrope]

112. "People are horrible judges of character, which is why we use the DSM"

Written by people, of course....

You continue to ignore the fact that the statute mandates psychiatric reports, prepared by people who, presumably, use the DSM....

Perhaps you could tell me what part of Mr. Comstock's behavior was within the range of acceptable human behavior?

[sui generis]

116. and have you stopped beating your wife?

Please, dear street lawyer. And by please I mean, oh please.

And you continue to ignore the fact that half the Supreme Court did NOT agree . . .

[Alcibiades]

169. Who do you think makes this call?

Certification is done by a panel. The panel relies on an evaluation conducted by... whom, exactly? My guess it is that it is someone familiar with the DSM, maybe even the DSM-IV-TR.

[Alcibiades]

170. How about the due process issues and equal protection issues?

Just off the top of my head. There are things about this process that ought not sit well with anyone--and I say that as someone who supports the general idea.

[herbm]

84. due process

Even if the violator is crazy (he's not, society treats him as "criminal"), there is a process like commitment involved where the reason and arguments are made for and against treatment against the "crazy" person's choice. He even gets representation. In a criminal charge there is a process: an arrest or indictment on a specific criminal charge that is ejudicated with legal representation. Habeas is about due process: a suspect is demanding charges and process or release.

[Orrex]

21. I'd like to read the dissenting opinion by Franz Kafka

[Poll_Blind]

22. "...can INDEFINITELY hold..." Just think about that. n/t

PB

[msanthrope]

40. Good. Those who are mentally and a danger to others should be held. n/t

[JoeyT]

61. I agree.

It isn't as if we regularly have large bursts of parents, teachers, and daycare workers that are railroaded by DAs and police that coerce statements out of kids and invent evidence out of thin air. If one ever happens maybe we could call it a "Satanic Panic" or something.

[msanthrope]

70. We shouldn't have this law because of Satanic Panic?

I don't get the point you are making. If you are arguing that we should not have confinement laws for the mentally ill, then I think you wrong.

[wickerwoman]

88. There's an excellent documentary called "Paradise Lost"

which I strongly recommend that everyone who favors this law watch. It's on youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CyTJgAfSRs

And then ask yourself if this is the kind of justice system that should have the power to detain people indefinitely without the right of periodic review.

[msanthrope]

93. If you actually read the law, then you'd know there is periodic review.

You could try reading the statute...you know, the thing you are arguing against?

And not for anything, but what do Arkansas murder statutes have to do with Comstock?

The West Memphis 3 aren't being detained under this law, or anything like it.

[leftyladyfrommo]

25. We just had a case of a dangerous sexual predator out after 30 years

and he raped 5 women in the Waldo area of Kansas City while he was still living in the half way house.

He had been in trouble for raping over and over again.

It would be different if these guys could be cured but they can't.

[elleng]

26. Solicitor General Elena Kagan successfully argued

the government's case in front of the Supreme Court. Kagan has now been nominated to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Kagan in January compared the government's power to commit sexual predators to its power to quarantine federal inmates whose sentences have expired but have a highly contagious and deadly disease.

''Would anybody say that the federal government would not have Article I power to effect that kind of public safety measure? And the exact same thing is true here. This is exactly what Congress is doing here,'' she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/05/17/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Sex-Offender-Law.html?hp

[msanthrope]

37. Good for her. It's a good law. n/t

[happyslug]

27. Here is the Opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

[msanthrope]

34. It's a good read on the Necessary and Proper clause....n/t

[DeSwiss]

28. K&R

- And into the rabbit hole we go.............

[BlancheSplanchnik]

30. with sexualized violence against women at epidemic proportions,

I am glad to see our safety taken seriously. I DO NOT support the crying here for the criminals.


Slippery slope, it's a goddamned slippery slope that continually sells out women's lives and safety in favor of male interests.

[harry_pothead]

75. Until some 19 year old is declared "sexually dangerous"

because he had a tryst with his 16 year old girlfriend and her parents god mad and got him prosecuted.

That's no good for men OR women. Besides, do you feel safer with the sex offender registries so filled up with bullshit cases that you have no hope of picking out the truly dangerous people?

[harry_pothead]

77. One more thing

People here are calling it a slippery slope because of the ridiculous vagueness of the term "sexually dangerous" - not just not just because they feel like calling it a slippery slope.

If instead of "sexually dangerous" it was "has committed heinous violent acts upon children and is extremely likely to do so again" - with stringent proof standards that the government must show - then more people would be on board with the extra confinement.

My Great Great Aunt was called "sexually dangerous" and confined to a mental institution. She was the 2nd woman to ever graduate from Stanford University. Three guesses what made her "sexually dangerous?"

[Courtesy Flush]

38. It's popular to vallainize sex offenders.

While I can agree that they should be punished, it seems their perceived danger is the real problem. Sexual assault is emotionally traumatic and devastating, I concede, but I think drunk drivers, who can kill a whole family in the blink of an eye, are far worse. Problem is: judges drink.

[msanthrope]

42. This might be the stupidest thing I've ever read on this site...n/t

[Courtesy Flush]

51. I hope you're talking about my spelling (damn IE6 at work)

I work with sex abuse victims in my job. I know exactly what harm it does, and I know that people recover from it. I've even seen sex abuse victims get more angry at society's attitude about them than they do about the abuse (it's a holdover from the days when a girl was considered to be "ruined" if she lost her virtue). Yes, it's a terrible crime, but not as terrible as killing people. Commit a sex offense and you're a monster for life. Drive drunk and kill people, and everyone wants to give you a break. We even cling to the word "accident" when drunk drivers kill people.

[customerserviceguy]

65. The sex abuse victims that this law protects

would be the ones it would be impossible for you to talk to, unless you have a Ouiji board. The kinds of scum who get the designation contemplated by this legislation are not your ordinary garden-variety flashers. They're violent, evil vermin, for whom sex is only a small part of the degredation they inflict upon their victims.

[harry_pothead]

76. That would be nice if it were true, but how do you know this "fact?"

If you don't think the "sexually dangerous" designation isn't going to be abused left and right, then I got a $500,000 Palin dinner to sell you.

[customerserviceguy]

79. Just go to each of the states that rates sexual offenders on a multi-level system

and you'll see what I mean. The people arrested for "exposing themselves" when they were just taking a pee on a tree in the woods don't get to the high levels. The child rapists do.

[madmusic]

89. "They're violent, evil vermin" does that include child porn possession?

Not manufacturing or making child porn, but just possession. Just wondering what you mean by "They're violent, evil vermin."

[customerserviceguy]

140. Anyone who gets off on kiddie porn

would probably do something to a kid. And no, I make a distinction between the true fan of kiddie porn, and the junior high school guy who just got emailed a nekkid picture of his similarly underaged girlfriend, or wannabe girlfriend.

[msanthrope]

144. Comstock's defenders seem to want to forget the other felonies.....

This guy was a grade school counselor, convicted of 2 counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child.

For which he got 3 years. Then he served his federal sentence.

Thank you for a burst of sanity on this thread.

[madmusic]

148. The Comstock defenders are coming!

Or is it the British are coming?

Truthfully, I didn't know what Comstock was convicted of and didn't think it was relevant, but did some digging to find out, and it turns out there were actually five petitioners and Comstock is only one of them.

Three if them were in federal prison for one count of possession of child porn. One of the three, Comstock, had been convicted previously of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, another of traveling in interstate commerce to engage in a sexual act with a minor (evidently a sting), and the third of indecent exposure.

So two of the convictions do not entail violence or even physical contact, so they may be vile vermin, but they apparently are not "violent, vile vermin," which was the reason for asking.

We went from "violent, vile vermin" to "would probably do something to a kid" to no contact offenses.

Is that a slippery slope?

My real interest at present was in the newfangled power now vested in the federal government, which is really all the opinion addresses. We will likely see new kinds of Guantanamos sprouting up here and there, helping the local economies by hiring guards and all.

Whether the feds will be able to keep all five of the petitioners civilly committed is yet to be seen. All their constitutional rights will be considered on remand. Maybe some will stay, maybe some will go. The Guantanamos are here to stay.

[msanthrope]

154. Why are you minimizing the crimes of these sex offenders?

Are you seriously suggesting that one must touch a child to commit a crime against them? Traveling to have sex with a minor? Crime against that minor!!!

Possession of child porn? HELLO!!!!! You have a victim, the minor who is depicted....these are real crimes, with real victims!

Stop minimizing crimes against children by suggesting that unless a molester actually puts hands on them, it's not serious!

GRAYDON EARL COMSTOCK JR.: Finished serving a three-year term in federal prison in November for receiving child pornography and forfeiture. Convicted of other sex crimes in Kansas, as cited above--2 counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. He was a grade school counselor.

SHANE CATRON: Was declared incompetent to stand trial for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor and abusive sexual conduct. He cannot be restored to competency at this time....are you seriously suggesting he should be out on the street?

THOMAS MATHERLY: Finished serving a three- to four-year federal prison sentence for his guilty plea on one count of possessing child pornography--in addition to his prior sentence of traveling across state lines to engage in sex with a minor. In other words, he didn't learn the first goddamn time.

MARKIS REVLAND: Completed his five-year prison term in November for possession of child pornography, plus arrests and conviction for indecent exposure.

MARVIN VIGIL: Pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor on an Indian reservation, serving an eight year prison term.

Note--Elena Kagan noted that not only had all of these guys had prior convictions, ALL of their certifications contained information about other offenses that was used in determining their certification....note that no defendant has challenged that. Not one. (and yes, non-convictions, accusations, and the like, count.)


http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/3mer/2mer/2008-1224.mer.aa.html

[madmusic]

155. You demonstrate the dangers of the slippery slope

We go from "violent and vile" to they are "violent and vile" because the government says they are. Not because of their convictions. Wait, you don't say that. You say something else.

That we have no right to question anything!!!!! That we should not care because it is MINIMIZING THEIR CRIMES!!!!!

You are more dangerous than these guys because the government can abuse thousands, like it did when it sterilized over 60,000 "unfit" citizens.

Shut up, you say, quit minimizing. Bow to the government.

"Note--Elena Kagan noted that not only had all of these guys had prior convictions, ALL of their certifications contained information about other offenses that was used in determining their certification....note that no defendant has challenged that."

They did challenge that and argued proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt (and it should be, as the lower courts found) but the proceedings were stayed and all the SCOTUS ruled on was if the feds can create Guantanamo, and they can. So we will likely see drug offender Guantanamo, a drunk driver Guantanamo, a gang member Guantanamo (terrorists, don't you know) and all kinds of Guantanamos housing the "unfit."

We might even have a fascist pig Guantanamo since we can pick and chose which is the evil de jure. Where would that leave you?

New Guantanamos are a done deal. The only question yet to be resolved is how many constitutional protections citizens will have before they are sent to Siberia. If they are afforded all the protections of a criminal trial, the damage to our system of Truth, Justice and the American Way may be contained somewhat. But we don't know yet.

If only the British had the civil commitment law before the revolution. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble and we would be spelling weird.

[msanthrope]

143. You do realize that Comstock did a hell of a lot more than possess child porn, right?

He was a grade school guidance counselor.

Let that one sink in....and reflect on the fact that he also had two convictions for aggravated indecent liberties with a child....he got three years for those charges.

[sui generis]

52. no, defending this split decision would qualify

It's not right. My inner sense of right and wrong says this is WRONG. That's the final arbiter I have to listen to after all the intellectualizing and pontificating and hand wringing to either side.

[msanthrope]

57. It's not right to confine the mentally ill who are a danger to others?

Because that's who we are talking about, here....

read the statute.

[sui generis]

94. confine them in prison?

what exactly do you think prison is for? You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Oh, and please do NOT quote "mentally ill" street lawyer wisdom to me. Read the DSM.

[Poll_Blind]

44. I just think, why not make longer prison terms for sex offenders rather than...

...having blanket "indefinite" detention. Too fuzzy. I mean, why even go through the time to determine and pronounce a sentence of any length (aside from being sentenced just "to jail") if the sentence length really doesn't mean anything. At least in this case.

:wtf:

PB

[devilgrrl]

59. You're so right - I can't think of a more misunderstood group of individuals.

:sarcasm:

[marshall]

149. I think the main priority should be protecting society

Rehabilitation is secondary, and punishing an offender is below that. I'm only interested in punishment if it protects society and transforms the offender into a valuable contributer to society.

[Poll_Blind]

43. This will be a great way to imprision political dissidents in the future!

Just sayin'

PB

[msanthrope]

46. How??? Seriously...can you explain how habeas doesn't apply? n/t

[Akoto]

68. Reference to the slippery slope theory.

This new law would detain people after they've served their time, because they are deemed to still be a sexual threat. The fear among some is that this could serve as a precedent to be used against other 'undesirables' later on, i.e: "The political motives of this individual pose a threat to the safety of the American people. If we're detaining sex offenders for being a threat, why aren't we doing the same for this dissident?"

[harry_pothead]

78. Exactly right.

And vague language like "sexually dangerous" fits the bill perfectly.

[Xithras]

122. Yep. Plant some kiddy porn on their computer, send in the FBI, and incarcerate them for life.

Not a bad deal, if you're into Orwellian big brotherism.

[elleng]

45. Decision

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

[alp227]

48. Good. That means states can seek mandatory minimum sentences not sex offender registries

The registry is basically a remote control without batteries. The conditions for sex offenders is pretty much a weakened parole system in which the offender can never live near a school or playground. In California there was recently a case of a sex offender, John Albert Gardner III, who killed two teenage girls after his parole expired. Seriously, it's hard to cure pedophiles. It's hard. That's why the state needs to put those people behind bars for decades or more rather than weak 5 year sentences. Is this telling about a nation whose prison population is mostly nonviolent drug offenders, some of whom will stay in prison until they're wrinkled or dead just because of a very light amount of a sinful substance?

[Unvanguard]

54. It didn't actually rule that they can.

It just ruled that if they can't, it is NOT because of the limitations on federal power in Article I of the US Constitution. It may still be objectionable on civil liberties ("Due Process") grounds.

[JoeyT]

62. Wow, damn near every argument in favor of this ruling

was used to defend the idea of a sex offender registry too. It isn't like that turned out to be a fuck up of epic proportions, full of the moral outrage of the day. Sexting teens, prostitutes, and consensual sex between teenagers are pretty common on it. All of them carry around the brand of "RAPIST AND/OR CHILD MOLESTER" on their forehead, their lives ruined forever.

Much like the sex offender registry this is a good idea in theory. In practice, given how corrupt our shitty justice system is, it's probably going to damage as many innocent people as guilty ones. While that may be acceptable to some, it isn't to me. (Unless it were only used in cases where the evidence proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the person was guilty. And I'd bet that isn't how it would be used.)

[customerserviceguy]

66. Every state that I've heard of

that has a sex offender registry uses a tiered system, and the things you talk about would be the lowest levels in the system. Those deserving to be classified in the highest levels of the system are the ones this law is talking about.

[depakid]

83. Actually, the arguments here are quite different

The analogy (if one can even call it that) is to civil commitment proceedings where the person has a mental disease or defect that renders them dangerous to themselves or others.

[Pavulon]

63. Fuck em. DNA on a child younger than 12 should earn life

in reality a hole, some lime, and a pistol is a better solution. They can take all the time behind bars they have to appeal their case..

Repeat offenders have no business in the human population.

[naaman fletcher]

85. Terrible ruling...

If you want to change the law for future crimes, I may or may not agree, but ok. But to change the law on someone already sentenced is obscene. Another once a year case where Scalia And Thomas are better than our judges.

[Uncle Joe]

105. I agree and I'm physically ill for having to agree with you on all counts.

[Unvanguard]

135. Did you bother reading the opinion?

Even just the official summary?

The argument you have just made about sentencing is not an unreasonable argument, but it has nothing to do with the claim at issue in the case, which is solely one of federalism. Scalia and Thomas are occasionally on the right side of a close issue when it comes to criminal procedure, but when they are, Stevens and Ginsburg are usually with them. This has nothing to do with criminal procedure and everything to do with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which the dissent interprets in an extremely narrow and untenable way.

[benEzra]

91. Hmmm, what happens when someone who has finished their sentence

is declared a "terrorist threat"? Can they be held indefinitely without trial, too?

As much as I abhor the catch-and-release policy toward sexual predators, I'm not sure this is the way to fix it. How about sentence them to life for forcible rape or child molestation instead of just 7 years or whatever they're getting now? Or are we letting them out early to make room in prisons for those eeee-villll pot smokers?

[msanthrope]

118. Then you run into 8th amendment and dp issues....

What the law does here is make a dichotomy that may or may not be acceptable to many.

Your punishment/imprisionment should be proportionate to your crime. Thus, no life sentence for child molestation.

But once that phase is over with, you are still mentally deficient. Does BOP put you back on the street?

So you are not imprisoned, but confined. Some would say six-of-one...

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. My brother worked at McNiel Island in their special commitment center

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/SCC/facilities.shtml

They call it "treatment" but it's like a roach hotel. Once you check in, you don't check out. It is my understanding that no one has ever been released. They're lifers and they know it.

Officially, they have a path to rehabilitiation via three separate facilities. They have this because of court order, but it's all a head-fake. No one is going to take the personal risk that one of these guys will one day get caught jaywalking.

On McNiell island, there is the main "facility" which has 228 beds and the "secure transition facility" with 24 beds. They also have a secure transition facility on mainland King county with six beds. It's apparent that they don't anticipate a lot of throughput.

[New Dawn]

146. Imagine CNN's outrage if Russia was doing this.

[newpub]

151. who decides?

I'm totally for it. However, who and how do they decide who is sexually dangerous?

[Silent3]

152. If it isn't already taken, I call dibs...

...on "Sexually Dangerous" as the name for a new band. :evilgrin:


(As for the actual content of the story, I'm sick and tired of the "think of the children!" hysteria over any offense that involves sex.)

[JackDragna]

171. For people who are for this..

..why sex offenders? The recidivism rate of sex offenders isn't higher than criminals convicted of a wide range of violent felonies. Why are states not eager to continually incarcerate murderers or arsonists? Why shouldn't states be able to indefinitely detain members of organized crime groups, particularly if law enforcement determines the individuals in question are likely to return to crime? It's society, once again, picking on a group nobody likes. Rights do not exist to defend the popular or tolerable: they exist to defend people, like sex offenders, who would otherwise have their rights trampled on with golf shoes.