|
Post by Connie on May 18, 2010 23:11:20 GMT -5
I just see this leading to more groups and a complete and total violation of our "judge and jury" system: The Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to indefinitely keep some sex offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences, if officials determine those inmates may prove "sexually dangerous" in the future. "The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/17/supreme-court-says-sex-offenders-can-be-held-indefinitely/
|
|
|
Post by havingfunnow on May 19, 2010 7:59:23 GMT -5
What about the psychopaths, of whom have no remorse or even a slightest inkling of right and wrong? You want them released back into the mainstream of society?
They are not saying all federal sexual offenders, just the ones that are determined to be a continued danger of offending again. Some of them even admit that they will do it again, once they are released.
I agree with the ruling.
|
|
|
Post by weebitty on May 19, 2010 9:44:52 GMT -5
me too there have been too many times that they have been let out and they killed and raped again within a few months of release. The law can only hold them so long after that they had to let them go. I know it is costly to do and we need to fix that as well. And I am not sure how to get some of the cost down. Maybe not give them such great health care, tv, etc, give them an education that our kids can't get?? I have heard these rumours I am not sure how true they are. I have never been arrrested.
|
|
|
Post by katieandthekids on May 19, 2010 10:09:41 GMT -5
I actually live just north of San Diego, about 30 minutes from where one of the girls that was killed was buried. They man that did this and has prompted this law was also found to have lived just north of us and they now say he tried to take another girl in between the 2 he killed. In this case the psychiastrist that evaluated him years ago knew he was a bad "seed" and I think if there are cases where they know something is not right, that staying in jail is what we should do. I have heard bad cases of teens having sex and one now being a sex offender because he had just turned 18. That is a shame, but having seen what the community here is going for, I think this new rule is justified.
|
|
|
Post by crimsulent on May 19, 2010 15:33:30 GMT -5
i agree with the ruling. we should make sure it's only used in the most extreme cases, or those where the offender shows no remorse whatsoever and/or clearly presents a danger to the public. it makes no sense to return violent psychopaths and sociopaths to society when there is an almost certainty they'll reoffend
Every effort should be made to make sure this law isn't applied to cases of consensual sex between HS kids where one has just reached 18. I think in a lot of cases they look at the age difference between the two kids and if it isn't too great they don't prosecute it the same way they would with an adult preying on a child.
There are cases where law enforcement and the DA know more about someone than they can actually prove in a court of law. After they've served the time for the crime they've been convicted of, their case needs to be studied in its entirety before a decision is made to release them.
|
|
|
Post by Connie on May 19, 2010 17:17:47 GMT -5
They can keep all the sex offenders they want, then they can keep all the serial killers and drug dealers and gang bangers too.. I really don't care on a personal level. On a constitutional rights level though.. I have a problem with it..
Our society is a society of laws and rules and a justice system. What is the point of a judge and jury if we are going to say "it doesn't matter what you think"?
I think the better way of handling this is to change the minimum sentencing requirements for the offenders that we don't want out on the street.
|
|
|
Post by crimsulent on May 19, 2010 17:55:02 GMT -5
i'll totally agree that it would be better to have longer, appropriate, sentences for violent crimes, than to mess around with the constitutional principle.
but until they get the laws fixed, i'm not for letting anyone out who we know is a danger to the public.
and sometimes it's pretty obvious!
i totally get the worry that the government could use this as a precedent and expand the practice to other groups. it's a legitimate concern.
|
|