KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 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. These types of offenders, while serving their sentences, are treated, evaluated, and observed for years. During this time and intense scrutiny, there is ample opportunity to decide if the offenders are likely to be a threat, should they be released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) These types of offenders, while serving their sentences, are treated, evaluated, and observed for years. During this time and intense scrutiny, there is ample opportunity to decide if the offenders are likely to be a threat, should they be released. Decide by whom? And what types of offenders are next? People guilty of hate crimes? Political prisoners? Drug abusers? Hell, there are a lot of people with dangerous ideas. Let's lock them up for some other crime, and then we can keep them in forever! PERFECT! Edited May 18, 2010 by rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 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. These types of offenders, while serving their sentences, are treated, evaluated, and observed for years. During this time and intense scrutiny, there is ample opportunity to decide if the offenders are likely to be a threat, should they be released. Under such a system, 'sentences', and therefore the rule of law, is meaningless. This system is analogous to conferring enemy combatant status (which also promised indefinite detention). Such a system seriously erodes the potential for a fair trial, and therefore attacks the due process clause. Here's why: After 911, several suspected terrorists were arrested in the U.S. and threatened with enemy combatant status (and the indefinite detention that would come with it). They wound up pleading guilty and getting fixed prison sentences rather that opting to go to trial and risk, somewhere along the way, that their status would be designated 'enemy combatant'. They claimed, initially, that they were not guilty, but their lawyers advised them to cop a plea as the lesser of two evils. Was justice served here? No. If the state feels some crimes are heinous enough to warrant life sentences, then charge the perps with crimes that may bring those life sentences. If a perp is deemed criminally insane, then commit them for as long as is needed to remove the threat from society. Do that up front, with a jury, using laws passed by a legislature that is voted into office, and both justice and democracy are served. Otherwise, you've given the state the power to arbitrarily increase awarded sentences, and threaten defendants (who, lets remember, are still considered innocent at that point) into copping pleas, guilty or not, under that threat. In addition, you've given the state the power the change the 'type' of crime they may apply this system to. Finally, the kind of voter oversight at work in sentencing by statute is either minimized or eliminated entirely with after-the-fact indefinite detention. I'm very uncomfortable giving the state that kind of power, particularly when there are other, less constitutionally questionable ways for the state to remove really bad people from society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Decide by whom? Parole boards. We are not talking about dangerous "ideas" but people who have been convicted of the most disgusting and egregious crimes against children. They have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed these crimes once (or more times). This is beyond a hypothetical determination. Spread to other areas? Sorry, but this class of human detritus is all we need to focus on. No need to bring in bullshit hypothetical slippery slopes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 Decide by whom? Parole boards. We are not talking about dangerous "ideas" but people who have been convicted of the most disgusting and egregious crimes against children. The guy in this test case was guilty of receiving child pornography online. The government decided to keep him indefinitely 6 days before his release. Are you saying there is no chance of a slippery slope here? That it's OK to indefinitely detain someone who downloaded illegal child porn, but NOT someone guilty of violent assault? Weird. If it makes sense to keep this guy locked up to protect us, then why shouldn't they protect us from other dangerous criminals? NOT FAIR!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Decide by whom? Parole boards. We are not talking about dangerous "ideas" but people who have been convicted of the most disgusting and egregious crimes against children. The guy in this test case was guilty of receiving child pornography online. The government decided to keep him indefinitely 6 days before his release. Are you saying there is no chance of a slippery slope here? That it's OK to indefinitely detain someone who downloaded illegal child porn, but NOT someone guilty of violent assault? Weird. If it makes sense to keep this guy locked up to protect us, then why shouldn't they protect us from other dangerous criminals? NOT FAIR!!! In the case of child molestors, you have 1) high recidivism rates and 2) linkage between behaviors. If someone is convicted of molesting a child, is in prison, and then views child porn before release, I have no problem with extending his sentence - indefinitely if need be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 If someone is convicted of molesting a child, is in prison, and then views child porn before release, I have no problem with extending his sentence - indefinitely if need be. But this is not what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 If someone is convicted of molesting a child, is in prison, and then views child porn before release, I have no problem with extending his sentence - indefinitely if need be. But this is not what happened. It's not clear from your link "what happened". There's just a comment about some people who either had been convicted sex offenders or viewed child porn complaining about the law: "The statue [sic] was challenged by several men who had completed prison sentences for possession of child pornography or for sexual abuse of a minor. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 well, the Supreme Court ruled it was within Congressional power to establish the statute. the Supreme Court did "not reach or decide any claim that the statute or its application denies equal protection, procedural or substantive due process, or any other constitutional rights." the difference is small but important to understand what they decided. here is the actual ruling instead of the media hyping the event so you go to their website: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.