what do you think of the indefinite imprisonment of certain sex offenders?

[Syrinx]

I'm no constitutional scholar, but this sure seems unconstitutional to me, and I'm surprised that the president is supporting it.

WASHINGTON – Chief Justice John Roberts has granted the Obama administration's request to the Supreme Court to block the release of certain sex offenders who have completed their federal prison terms.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had earlier invalidated a law allowing the indefinite commitment of "sexually dangerous" prison inmates.

Roberts, in an order Friday, says as many as 77 inmates can continue to be held at a prison in North Carolina at least until the high court decides whether to hear the administration's appeal of a ruling by the federal appeals court.

...

The administration is arguing that the law does not violate the Constitution and was well within Congress' power.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sex_offender_law_3

Congress could pass life-in-prison laws for certain sex offenses if it chose to. But I'm thinking that keeping people confined after they have served their sentences in full is offensive to Constitutional principles.

[sandnsea]

1. Congress has a right to impose life sentences

I don't understand why the Supreme Court didn't uphold this law to begin with.

Regardless, rhe ruling is on appeal. Seems perfectly proper for the courts to issue an injunction, or similar ruling, when an appeal is in process.

[H2O Man]

3. I think the issue

centers on the law not being one where people are given life sentences, but instead, a specific sentence that once served, did not result in release. Congress can make laws for federal offenses, of course, but not for violations of state laws. For a federal law to allow an "open-ended" incarceration for a person who was convicted of a state offense, and then served the time, to be held without ever being convicted of a federal offense is the issue. The solution could be one of two things: (1) making ssome sexual offenses federal crimes; or (2) making some sexual offenses crimes that carry life sentences according to state law.

[sandnsea]

5. These are federal offenses

It says that right in the article, completed their federal prison terms.

The law allows a federal judge to civilly commit sex offenders, like we do other mentally ill criminals. The commitment laws are "danger to self or others". Apparently they're reviewed every 6 months, but it amounts to a life sentence because the point is to keep child molestors away from kids.

[varkam]

10. Isn't that a bit disingenous though?

If the purpose of the law is to keep child molesters away from kids, then why go through all the hoopla of designating people as sexually dangerous persons?

[sandnsea]

11. Because that's the criteria

to keep them off the streets. If you discovered someone had murderous tendencies in prison, would you not want a judge to consider putting them in the forensic psych unit?

[varkam]

14. Murderous tendencies?

No - not if they've completed their prison sentence. If they've committed crimes while in prison, then their term is extended. Getting into the area of future crime seems very iffy - especially considering that risk assessment isn't a very well-developed discipline.

[sandnsea]

16. danger to self or others

Completely disagree. If someone is determined to be a danger to others, he/she should be committed. It's done all the time. Tier 3 child molestors aren't "iffy".

[varkam]

17. Considering that "Tier 3" is a legal fiction created by politicians...

and determined purely by statute and not by individual facts, I fail to see how it's anything but iffy. I mean the law could be improved by requiring individual facts to be analyzed in making that determination, but my other point was that actuarial tools such as the STATIC-99 aren't a whole hell of a lot better than guessing who's going to re-offend and who's not.

[sandnsea]

21. Three sexual offenses are not fiction

You have to become a Tier I, before you can become a Tier II, before you can become a Tier III.

That's it for me. Not "iffy".

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-r-0765.htm

[varkam]

25. Did you read the page that you linked to?

A Tier III sex offender is the most serious classification. These sex offenders are convicted of an offense that is punishable by more than one year in prison and:

1. is comparable or more severe than one of the following federal crimes or conspiracy or attempt to commit one of them: aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual contact against a minor under age 13;

2. involves kidnapping a minor, unless the actor is a parent or guardian; or

3. occurs after the offender became a Tier II sex offender.

You do not "have to become a Tier I, before you can become a Tier II, before you can become a Tier III" - read the first two points closely. All you have to do is commit one of those offenses. The second point notes that all you have to do is kidnap a minor - which can lead to some very absurd results. There was a case in Georgia where a gunman robbed a fast-food restaurant. The female cashier was sixteen. He ordered her lay on the floor (which qualifies as kidnapping - see point 2). He then became a Tier III sex offender even with no sexual element to his crime - yet, would you contend that he is a persistent risk of molesting children, even though he has never committed a crime with a sexual element? As I have said, it's controlled entirely by statute - not by individual risk factors.

The Tier designations have little or nothing to do with the risks posed by individuals. Furthermore, the Tier designations have absolutely nothing to do with the civil commitment process and the burden of proof that the government is required to meet in order to committ a sexually dangerous person.

[sandnsea]

27. And so he won't be committed

Because he has no diagnosed mental illness. And I don't read the statute that way, but it's really not that important because the other two criteria are fine in themselves.

Clearly the Georgia case was an abuse of the law, which happens, but is no reason to do away with law. I'll come down on the side of kids over robbers every day.

[varkam]

29. No - but he is a Tier III sex offender.

You do understand that being a Tier III sex offender and civil commitment have nothing to do with one another right? Because, if not, I would encourage you to do a little bit more reading on the subject.

And I don't read the statute that way, but it's really not that important because the other two criteria are fine in themselves.

You didn't read the statute that way? What other way is there to read it? The language is as plain as day. It's really not that important? What?

Clearly the Georgia case was an abuse of the law, which happens, but is no reason to do away with law. I'll come down on the side of kids over robbers every day.

That's not just Georgia law - it's federal law. Lest you have forgotten, the page that you linked to was talking about the AWA - not state law.

Seems to me that if people really cared about protecting children, they would want the law crafted to maximize it's effect and not become so bloated as to snag people who are not dangerous thereby giving cover to those that are. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that, though.

[sandnsea]

31. *sigh*

If a Tier III sex offender and civil commitment have nothing to do with each other - than this Tier III offender won't be civilly commited - right? That's the point I just made.

Laws ALWAYS end up snagging people they shouldn't, ALWAYS. That's a problem with prosecutors, not necessarily the laws.

This law is good, just the way it is.

[varkam]

34. Okay, I'll try to 'splain it again...

The Tier designation has to do with the sex offender registry.

Civil committment has to do with the indefinite confinement of a person after they have served their sentence.

The Tier designation is not made based on individual facts - it is based on statute.

Civil commitment is not based on the Tier designation - it is based on the mental status of the individual.

Laws ALWAYS end up snagging people they shouldn't, ALWAYS. That's a problem with prosecutors, not necessarily the laws.

This law is good, just the way it is.

Somehow, I don't have much faith in an assertion of how good a law is from someone who doesn't seem to understand it.

In this case, it's not a problem with the prosecutors - the problem is with the law. Prosecutors don't charge the AWA. Prosecutors don't designate. Prosecutors charge crimes. If someone is charged with kidnapping a minor, then the judge has to apply the law. It's not the judge's job to legislate - they have to apply it until it is stricken by a higher court or it is repealed in Congress.

Yikes.

[sandnsea]

37. The Civil Commitment IS based on Tier designation

in part. They are not committing Tier 1 sex offenders, and probably very few Tier 2. These are Tier 3 sex offenders and it matters.

But you just keep spinning your shit for whatever weird game you want to play.

[varkam]

38. You have no clue what in the hell you're yammering about.

Moreover, you don't seem to care that you have no clue what you're yammering about. As I have stated clearly, the tier designations have to do with sex offender registries - not the civil commitment process. The Tier designations have nothing to do with...you know what? Fuck it. I'm tired of repeating myself umpteen times to you in this thread when you're not even reading what I have to write.

I have no problem with ignorance. I'm ignorant about many things, as is everyone - but I want to learn.

What I do have a problem with is willful ignorance. I have no patience for it or for those who revel in it.

That said - adios, amigo.

[sandnsea]

39. Yes, the Tiers DO matter

I do not understand why you want to pretend that this law has judges commiting Tier 1 sex offenders - but you're the one that's stuck in willful ignorance, not me.

[H2O Man]

42. Well,

at least when I'm wrong, I'm so wrong that I leave no doubt! Sorry about that. You are, of course, correct.

I hadn't read the whole article. This is twice in the last 12 hours that I've done this. My mind is distracted .... not that I don't make the same stupid mistake when I'm fully focused.

[Syrinx]

6. I don't know anything about this beyond this one article

But it doesn't make any sense to me to allow the government to continue to incarcerate someone that has completed the prison term to which they were sentenced. It's really not that different from what Bush was doing at Gitmo. (Except that those people were never convicted of anything in the first place.) It just seems to be "extra-constitutional" to me.

I also don't like these state laws that say a released sex offender can't live within so many feet of schools and churches and playgrounds, etc. Once they get out of jail, those people have to live somewhere. At least here in the south, we've got churches out the wazoo. There's practically no place that these people can legally live. I mean it's just ridiculous.

If congress wants to pass life-in-prison punishments for the offenders, then do it. But if someone is sentenced to eight years in prison, and serves eight years, I think they should get to go home.

And, no, I'm not, nor have I ever been, a sex offender. ;)

[sandnsea]

9. I think they're doing commitments

"Tier 3", the worst of the worst, only. Like they do with the mentally ill who are threats to others. So it isn't just a throw away the key life sentence, in theory.

I typically am very sympathetic to criminal's rights. I just have none when it comes to rapists and child molestors.

I am much more concerned about the "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" offenders who have to comply with the registries and living restrictions than I am about the truly dangerous offenders who are being kept locked away. I think we've got the Tier 3 right and the rest way wrong.

[varkam]

12. The problem with the Teir designations, though...

is that they are done by statute - not by risk analysis. People convicted of certain crimes under the AWA qualify for Tier 3 status, but it may have absolutely nothing to do with the risk that they pose (because, often times, that sort of thing requires a fact-heavy analysis on a case-by-case basis). On the other side, it would follow that there would be folks designated as Tier 1 and Tier 2 that are dangerous but are not designated as such because Congress decided not to include their offense under Tier 3.

Basically, it's a good idea and a step in the right direction for the registry, but it's horribly executed.

[sandnsea]

13. That's why a judge looks at each case

and makes that case by case analysis. Long overdue.

[varkam]

15. No they don't.

Under the AWA, it's done entirely by statute. SORs in Ohio filed suit over just that when Ohio adopted the law, and all of a sudden people who had completed their term on the registry found out that they were now designated as Tier 3 and had to register for life. There were no hearings. Judges have nothing to do with it (aside from ordering the defendant to register).

I think that there may be a few states that do actually do individual risk assessment and assign people to the registry that way, but those would be states that have not adopted the AWA.

[sandnsea]

19. Kept in prison

Not assigned to the registry - but kept in prison. That's what the case is about.

[varkam]

20. Then why did you bring up the Tier designations?

They have nothing to do with the civil commitment process. The government has to show a mental disease or defect that would cause a person to reoffend sexually - not merely that an individual meets the statutory requirement for a Tier 3 offender.

[sandnsea]

22. Those are the ones it affects

I said they're doing commitments with the Tier 3 offenders, the worst of the worst. Like they do with other mentally ill criminals. You know, a commitment process that shows a person is likely to continue to "harm self or others". I've said it repeatedly in this thread.

[varkam]

23. But that ignores both what Tier 3 actually means as well as what the government is...

required to show in order to civilly commit someone. They're not doing civil commitment with Tier 3 offenders because there could very well be individuals that qualify for civil commitment who are not Tier 3 under the AWA and there could very well be individuals who are Tier 3 that would not qualify because the Tier designation has nothing to do with the individual facts - all it has to do with is the statute that the offender violated.

The civil commitment process has little, if nothing, to do with the actual statute that the offender violated. It has to do with the individual facts.

Also, the burden that the government has to show is not that someone is "likely to continue to 'harm self or others'" but that, by reason of a mental disease or defect there is a heightened likelihood of continued sexual offending. I know that might be a fine point, but it is an important one.

[sandnsea]

26. They did civil commitments with 77 offenders

and those are 77 offenders who should stay in prison. The fact of mental disease or defect is not the criteria for commitment. The likelihood of harm to self or others is the criteria, along with a diagnosed mental disease which I gave DUers credit for understanding. The individual facts are being considered, which was your complaint in another post, that it was statute based. It's not.

This is the best we can do to make sure the most dangerous offenders don't get out and stuff our kids in freezers.

[varkam]

28. .

The fact of mental disease or defect is not the criteria for commitment. The likelihood of harm to self or others is the criteria, along with a diagnosed mental disease which I gave DUers credit for understanding. The individual facts are being considered, which was your complaint in another post, that it was statute based. It's not.

So a mental disease or defect that results in an increased likelihood for sexual offending is not ther criteria? Isn't that what you just said is the criteria?

Further, as I have said, the Tier designations have nothing to do with the civil commitment process. Individual factors are taken into account in that process but not with the Tiers. The Tiers and the civil committment process are two entirely different things. Tier designations relate to the AWA and sex offender registries whereas civil commitment has to do with what is at issue here.

This is the best we can do to make sure the most dangerous offenders don't get out and stuff our kids in freezers.

Sigh.

[sandnsea]

30. You're just arguing to be difficult now

I don't know why you want to twist around something so simple as the criteria to commit someone. But you can play that game by yourself.

The Tiers are important so that people understand we're not talking about life imprisonment for kids having sex in the park.

And kids do end up stuffed in freezers, so sigh for them instead of child molestors.

[varkam]

35. Uh, I've clearly stated what the criteria are.

Sorry you seemed to have missed that on multiple occasions now.

The Tiers are important so that people understand we're not talking about life imprisonment for kids having sex in the park.

Right - like the guy that robbed the Wendy's and is a Tier III sex offender. He's obviously a very dangerous child molester. I still don't know how you missed that - it's right in the fracking statute that you linked to.

Do you hear that whooshing sound right above your head? It's the point.

And kids do end up stuffed in freezers, so sigh for them instead of child molestors.

I'm sighing because you don't seem to have read a single one of my posts. I'm sighing because it's frustrating when you try to explain something to someone only to find out that they really don't want to understand what it is that they're talking about in that they prefer make pronouncements from on high rather than have their opinions informed by, you know, reality. I'm sighing because it's always kind of annoying when you try, in good faith, to explain something to someone only to be met with bullshit hyperbole.

Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe I overestimated your knowledge about things like how the government works, about how legislation works, about how the courts work. Maybe I should have started of with smaller concepts like this idea of separation of powers, or what the legislative branch does. If that's the case, then I would have been happy to do that. But, instead of just copping to your ignorance you'd rather just spew venom at me.

That's okay - I'm tired of this. Feel free to stew in your own pot for as long as you'd like.

[Syrinx]

32. this isn't about a certain class of criminal

It's about a principle. I'm against the government being able to hold someone just because they say so. Know what I mean?

If these people are criminally insane, then the government should pursue that angle from the beginning, and have them committed, through the usual judicial process.

[sandnsea]

36. It's because they're sick fucks

not just because the government "said so". Know what I mean?

The law to pursue them as criminally insane wasn't written. Now it is. And good that it is.

[LuvNewcastle]

2. I think that a person shouldn't be held

any longer than their sentence demands. If the law is changed and stiffer penalties are mandated, that's fine with me, but any change in the law should not affect people who are already doing time and it shouldn't change their release date.

[Jeep789]

4. I agree with you

Not the least bit Constitutional or humane. If the sentences are inadequate, they should be changed but not be retroactive. In fact, most of these people obviously suffer from some sort of psychological problems and although we are currently unable to cure them, we should be looking for causes and solutions.

Another one that really gets me is trying children as adults. If you think juvenile sentences are too lenient change the friggen laws but don't pretend that someone you don't trust to drink, gamble or enter into legal contracts is an adult when it suits you.

[varkam]

8. Ah juvenile sentencing - one of the many side-effects of the democratization...

of criminal justice. The only real reliable indicator that I have come across as to whether or not a juvenile will be charged as an adult is the amount of news coverage and outrage that the crime sparks. If people are angry and demand blood...well, they'll get blood.

[Jeep789]

18. Very true. We have a case in CA now with a truck driver that

ran into a building, killing a father and daughter. He is being charged with vehicular manslaughter even though his brakes gave out. Not sure why but it is definitely one to watch.

I was also perplexed by the death sentences handed out to the convicted arsonist last month. The guy obviously has a problem but there is no proof he intended to kill anyone.

[varkam]

7. Well, given that civil commitment is sort of a "roach motel"

(i.e. you check in, but you don't check out), it basically amounts to constructive life imprisonment. My guess is that the government is going to argue that it's not punishment but simply a regulatory measure, and so the ex post facto prohibition in the Constitution does not apply - but that doesn't seem to pass the straight-face test. You can't change the rules of the game in the last few seconds of the fourth quarter (if you'll forgive the sports analogy).

If Congress wants to enact life sentences for certain sex offenses, then they need to legislate that and then have the Constitutionality of that debated in the courts.

[empyreanisles]

24. I don't agree with this. If someone does their time, they should go free.

This is a really lazy way to seem "tough on crime", IMHO. We should trust judges to set the appropriate punishments at sentencing. If someone's crime is sufficiently heinous, then you better believe he wouldn't be getting out anytime soon.

[Syrinx]

33. for some reason, I just thought of Spicoli as a judge

(Reinhold?)

And he pronounces someone "sufficiently heinous" to sentence to life.

It made me laugh. :D

[soothsayer]

41. Yup. I think recidivism is lower than we are led to believe.

[TexasObserver]

40. It offends the concept of crime and punishment by rule of law.

I like the notion of public trials with judges and juries, which conclude whether someone has committed a crime, as alleged. I don't like the notion of someone who is an "expert" deciding that a person isn't safe to be allowed out at the end of the term they were sentenced to serve, and did serve.

I am not confident of 100% justice, ever. I know it doesn't exist, which means no matter how much we may feel certain this guy is really a threat, we often cannot be sure. The problem is that a solution designed for the worst of criminals will be used to send off forever people who might be guilty of nothing, who might have been the subject of malicious prosecution, or committed bad conduct while using. I'm not a person of absolutes, and unless a person is absolutely, incontrovertibly dangerous and guilty, I don't want to see them stuck away forever.

[Juche]

43. I think it is idiotic on several levels

For one thing, about 90% of sex offenders are never caught so being draconian with the 5-10% who do get caught probably won't fix anything other than giving suburban soccer moms a phony sense of security and safety.

If you have a truly dangerous sexual predator who you know will reoffend when he gets out I can see the point in keeping him in jail, but why would the judge or parole board let him out in the first place? Plus we have such a moral panic about sex and sexual predators in this country that the standard for being considered a dangerous sexual predator who needs a life sentence is probably pretty low. This law may on paper be about dangerous sex offenders, but I'm sure tons of reformed and non dangerous ones will be given life sentences over very flimsy reasons.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

44. Set ALL sex offenders free! (AFTER administering the Pb 82 pill.)

None will re-offend and it's cost effective!
All in the U.S. are seen as nothing more than potential collateral
damage, why should sex offenders be accorded special treatment?

(Child molesters get TWO pills for good measure.)

[adamuu]

45. Related thread from a few hours earlier

Court blocks release of sex offenders due out of jail
OneBlueSky Sat Apr-04-09 01:32 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5388532&mesg_id=5388532

[Kievan Rus]

46. I'm all for it

One of my friends was raped and she still has a lot of issue with it. Anybody that does something that disgusting deserves to be locked up for life. A rape conviction ought to be an automatic life sentence.