Sex Offenders Held Indefinitely?

[guido911]

The Supremes 7-2 think so. wow.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/17/supreme-court-says-sex-offenders-can-be-held-indefinitely/

[Conan71]

The Supremes 7-2 think so. wow.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/17/supreme-court-says-sex-offenders-can-be-held-indefinitely/

I sure woud hate for them to apply that to enemy combatants.  They have rights under our Constitution you know.

/bedwetting

[guido911]

I sure woud hate for them to apply that to enemy combatants.  They have rights under our Constitution you know.

/bedwetting

That is a spot on good point.

[patric]

Seems rather extreme for peeing on a bush, considering the bulk of "sex offenders" in Oklahoma are Public Indecency (i.e. public urination) charges.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Actually, they said that the government could deem them a threat and hold indefinitely.  That would mean constitutionally they have the right to do that for anybody that the state deems a threat.  I believe they might have to pass another law in order to hold people that get arrested for drunk driving.  But the supreme court already said it was ok.

[Gaspar]

Not Constitutional unless said offender shows intent to commit another crime.

You can't keep a DUI in jail beyond his sentence because you think he's going to get behind the wheel of a car drunk again, even though he probably will.

If the sentence fails to rehabilitate or safeguard the public, than it's the sentencing that must be changed.  You can't give the state the power to imprison absent of evidence of a crime, or proof of intent.

If a repeat sex offender gets 10 years. . .Well there's your problem

[sauerkraut]

Why not other crimes - such as murder and armed robbery? They are very dangerous too. Why not hold on to them also? In fact why even sentence them, just find them "guilty" and jail 'em till whenever-

[Conan71]

Why not other crimes - such as murder and armed robbery? They are very dangerous too. Why not hold on to them also? In fact why even sentence them, just find them "guilty" and jail 'em till whenever-

You make a strong case for a "poll tax" on public computers

[nathanm]

If the sentence fails to rehabilitate or safeguard the public, than it's the sentencing that must be changed.  You can't give the state the power to imprison absent of evidence of a crime, or proof of intent.

If a repeat sex offender gets 10 years. . .Well there's your problem

Wow, I sure have been agreeing with Gaspar a lot lately.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Not Constitutional unless said offender shows intent to commit another crime.

You can't keep a DUI in jail beyond his sentence because you think he's going to get behind the wheel of a car drunk again, even though he probably will.

If the sentence fails to rehabilitate or safeguard the public, than it's the sentencing that must be changed.  You can't give the state the power to imprison absent of evidence of a crime, or proof of intent.

If a repeat sex offender gets 10 years. . .Well there's your problem

Why can't you keep anybody who is in jail?  This specifically says that if an official deems you to be a threat the have the constitutional right to hold you.  All they need is a law to make it so.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Why not other crimes - such as murder and armed robbery? They are very dangerous too. Why not hold on to them also? In fact why even sentence them, just find them "guilty" and jail 'em till whenever-

This is basically what the law says.  Just jail people until a government official says they are rehabilitated.

[nathanm]

This is basically what the law says.  Just jail people until a government official says they are rehabilitated.

Let's be accurate with our outrage. Per the usual civil commitment procedures, a review board must hear the person's case every six months and specifically determine that they are still a continued danger to themselves others. The detainee is entitled to have an attorney or mental health advocate speak on their behalf.

It's still crappy, but it's not done just on the warden's say-so.

I hate the inconsistency more than anything. If someone is mentally ill, we shouldn't put them in prison. We should put them somewhere where they can get treatment. If they're not mentally ill, they shouldn't be declared to be just so we can keep 'em locked up.

[patric]

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Hundreds of sex offenders could be coming off the statewide registry because of changes to sex offender laws.
http://www.newson6.com/story/15930844/new-oklahoma-law-softens-penalties-for-public-urination
Before November 1, people caught urinating in public had to register as sex offenders, but a new law is softening the penalty.

Meanwhile, the same TPD spokesperson who claimed the Pedobear cartoon is how pedophiles club together is also saying no public peers were registered.

[carltonplace]

Why not other crimes - such as murder and armed robbery? They are very dangerous too. Why not hold on to them also? In fact why even sentence them, just find them "guilty" and jail 'em till whenever-

If the government ever has a reason to consider you dangerous you should advocate throwing away the key (kraut of monte cristo style)