Indefinite Detention?

[rob]

So, what do you guys think about the recent SCOTUS ruling that sex offenders can be held indefinitely, even after their prison sentences are complete?

 

This sounds pretty fucked up to me.

 

Under the statute, prosecutors may petition a court to detain a prisoner even after completion of his prison sentence if they can show by "clear and convincing evidence" that the person remains a risk to others.

 

Clear and convincing evidence? Convincing to who? Another jury? Do they even find out for how long they will be indefinitely held for? WTF? Due process????

[olyclimber]

thats definitely one side of the coin. the other side is convicted offenders who freely admit they will offend again as soon as they are released, and then immediately do so when they are.

[rob]

so what's the process? A single prosecutor decides someone is still a risk, and tells the judge, and a single judge decides to incarcerate him indefinitely? WTF?

[olyclimber]

i don't know the process, but i don't think it is a prosecutor who is evaluating risk of re-offense.

[ivan]

sounds like a very easy law to abuse, if ye'll pardon the pun.

 

i'd be more strident about child sex abusers if it didn't include teens banging 20 year olds...

[tvashtarkatena]

Sex offenders don't make very sympathetic victims of injustice, but, the obvious question that stems from this ruling is:

 

Who's next?

[rob]

Liburuls, thats who! TAKE AWAY THEIR POSTERS AND LOCK 'EM UP!!! MORANS!

[olyclimber]

muslins

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/17/muslims-nyc-planning-build-second-smaller-mosque-near-ground-zero/

[KaskadskyjKozak]

so what's the process?

 

Execute them.

[ivan]

so what's the process?

 

Execute them.

see, you CAN relate to commies!

[tvashtarkatena]

So much for the fear of soshalists dumping the bodies of their enemies in mass graves, eh, KuntKuntKunt?

 

I think executing a 20 year old for nailing a 16 year old is a fine idea. Very civilized.

Edited May 18, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

so what's the process?

 

Execute them.

see, you CAN relate to commies!

 

You are one stupid motherf*****

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So much for the fear of soshalists dumping the bodies of their enemies in mass graves, eh, KuntKuntKunt?

 

I think executing a 20 year old for nailing a 16 year old is a fine idea. Very civilized.

 

You can start with the Catholic priests molesting alter boys, you ACLU fucktard moron.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

JESUS, that's like a planaria calling the guy behind the microscope stupid.

[tvashtarkatena]

So much for the fear of soshalists dumping the bodies of their enemies in mass graves, eh, KuntKuntKunt?

 

I think executing a 20 year old for nailing a 16 year old is a fine idea. Very civilized.

 

You can start with the Catholic priests molesting alter boys, you ACLU fucktard moron.

 

To some, they'd be equivalent, I suppose. But then, that same group also eats its own poo.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So much for the fear of soshalists dumping the bodies of their enemies in mass graves, eh, KuntKuntKunt?

 

I think executing a 20 year old for nailing a 16 year old is a fine idea. Very civilized.

 

You can start with the Catholic priests molesting alter boys, you ACLU fucktard moron.

 

To some, they'd be equivalent, I suppose. But then, that same group also eats its own poo.

 

Is this where you start replying to your own postings 3, 4, even 5 or more times?

[ivan]

 

Is this where you start replying to your own postings 3, 4, even 5 or more times?

kinda like jeb stuart in the wild n' heady days of '62?

 

'might be a retard, but i will FAHQ yer ass up at some civil war triva sport

[ivan]

So much for the fear of soshalists dumping the bodies of their enemies in mass graves, eh, KuntKuntKunt?

 

I think executing a 20 year old for nailing a 16 year old is a fine idea. Very civilized.

"a hit! a very papable hit!"

 

[murraysovereign]

So, what do you guys think about the recent SCOTUS ruling that sex offenders can be held indefinitely, even after their prison sentences are complete?

 

This sounds pretty fucked up to me.

 

Under the statute, prosecutors may petition a court to detain a prisoner even after completion of his prison sentence if they can show by "clear and convincing evidence" that the person remains a risk to others.

 

Clear and convincing evidence? Convincing to who? Another jury? Do they even find out for how long they will be indefinitely held for? WTF? Due process????

 

We've been doing that up here for quite a while now. They're called "Dangerous Offenders" and can be held after their original sentence is served, up to and including "indefinitely". The "D.O." status has to be reviewed after 5 or 7(?) years, and then every 2 years after that. But if you're a Paul Bernardo, or a Clifford Olson, or a Robert Pickton, chances are the review panel is going to find that, well, you're still kinda "dangerous", you know?

 

But then, we're a bunch of soft-on-crime, limp-wristed liberal pussies up here, so what else would you expect?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

We've been doing that up here for quite a while now. They're called "Dangerous Offenders" and can be held after their original sentence is served, up to and including "indefinitely". The "D.O." status has to be reviewed after 5 or 7(?) years, and then every 2 years after that. But if you're a Paul Bernardo, or a Clifford Olson, or a Robert Pickton, chances are the review panel is going to find that, well, you're still kinda "dangerous", you know?

 

[tvashtarkatena]

So, what do you guys think about the recent SCOTUS ruling that sex offenders can be held indefinitely, even after their prison sentences are complete?

 

This sounds pretty fucked up to me.

 

Under the statute, prosecutors may petition a court to detain a prisoner even after completion of his prison sentence if they can show by "clear and convincing evidence" that the person remains a risk to others.

 

Clear and convincing evidence? Convincing to who? Another jury? Do they even find out for how long they will be indefinitely held for? WTF? Due process????

 

We've been doing that up here for quite a while now. They're called "Dangerous Offenders" and can be held after their original sentence is served, up to and including "indefinitely". The "D.O." status has to be reviewed after 5 or 7(?) years, and then every 2 years after that. But if you're a Paul Bernardo, or a Clifford Olson, or a Robert Pickton, chances are the review panel is going to find that, well, you're still kinda "dangerous", you know?

 

But then, we're a bunch of soft-on-crime, limp-wristed liberal pussies up here, so what else would you expect?

 

If they're so dangerous, why don't you just give them long or even life sentences with a periodic parole review, just in case they turn over a new leaf? You don't fuck the rule of law in the ass that way.

 

I realize a solution like the above is utterly beyond TripleKunt's comprehension, but still.

Edited May 18, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[murraysovereign]

If they're so dangerous, why don't you just give them long or even life sentences with a periodic parole review, just in case they turn over a new leaf? You don't fuck the rule of law in the ass that way.

 

Fucking the rule of law in the ass? How so? If you, say, kidnap teenaged girls and keep them locked up in your house, using them as sex slaves for weeks or months before torturing them to death, and then cutting them up with Skil saws in order to dispose of the remains, well, that's against the law. And if we catch you breaking the law in that way, like Paul Bernardo, we're going to put you away - indefinitely. That's how the law is written. That's the "rule".

 

In the past, we used to just hang people like Bernardo and Olson and Pickton, until we decided the practice was a) wrong b) ineffective and c) resulting in way too many innocent people being hanged. So we came up with this "dangerous offender" notion to deal with those people we secretly really, really want to hang, but can't because it's against the law.

 

The "dangerous offender" designation is reserved for those who, let's face it, are probably more appropriately confined - indefinitely - in a psychiatric facility, rather than in a prison. As far as I know, the dangerous offender designation has to be determined at the time of your trial, and in fact is treated as a sub-trial. You're entitled to all the normal legal protections of an accused on trial, including all the usual rules of evidence and testimony, right to representation, right to appeal, etc. It's not just some arbitrary edict sent down by an anonymous tribunal somewhere. It's not applied retroactively. It's part of your sentencing at the time of your trial. It's part of how our rules of law are applied, not a violation of them.

[tvashtarkatena]

The little torture story is not a violation of the rule of law. It's a violation of the law. Not the same.

 

The U.S. example is a violation of the rule of law, because it is applied retroactively. Again, not the same.

 

Your law is essentially a paraphrased life sentence.

[rob]

So, why have sentences at all? Just keep them all indefinitely.

 

If it's not applied retroactively, and it's applied at the time of your trial (not true, btw -- prosecutors can lobby the court AFTER the sentence is finished and they decide they are still "dangerous" -- there is no second trial), then why give a sentence at all? Why not just start the indefinite detention immediately?

 

kkkkk, I'm sad that you're in support of this.

 

 

[rob]

I mean, it's so unamerican. If the sentence ended and officials were still worried he was dangerous, then they should have to prove that in court with a jury of his peers. And even if they add indefinite detention to the original sentence and cover it during the original trial, how often is it reviewed? By a jury of his peers, or just between the judge and prosecutor? What are the criteria for deciding he is still dangerous? Are the criteria listed, or are they arbitrary? Who gets to decide?

 

fucking scary. I can't believe that the supreme court would be OK with this, and I am even more surprised that anybody I know would be.

Edited May 18, 2010 by rob