Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Sex Offender Re-imprisonment

[Pangloss]

The Supreme Court ruled today that convicted sex offenders can be imprisoned even after their sentences expire if they are determined to be mentally ill and sexually dangerous.

 

In a decision by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court upheld a federal law that allows dangerous sex offenders to remain in prison if the federal government proves by clear and convincing evidence they would have "serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation" if released.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20005155-504564.html

 

This was a 7-2 decision that, oddly enough, was opposed by conservative hero Antonin Scalia, joined by Clarence Thomas, who (together in dissent) said that this power should be left to the states.

 

Liberal champion Stephen Breyer made this interesting statement in the majority opinion:

 

“As federal custodian, it has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger federal prisoners may pose.”

 

Interestingly, some of the statements in the majority opinion are being used to suggest some rationales for future decisions regarding the health care reform legislation passed earlier this year.

 

Another (longer) article here:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-17/sex-offender-commitment-law-upheld-by-u-s-high-court-update2-.html

 

I've been on the liberal side of this issue, generally opposed to ongoing punishments for sex offenders, and I think that in most cases the science is inadequate to determine whether someone is a "future threat to society". Who can predict the future? I understand the sentiment but it seems inconsistent with the constitution to me.

 

What do you all think?

[bascule]

Shouldn't these people be institutionalized rather than jailed?

 

Also... sex offender is such a broad category. It can apply to ridiculous cases of statutory rape, such as an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old, or even cases where minors make sexually explicit pictures of themselves available either through MMS (i.e. mobile phone text messages w\ pictures) or over the Internet.

 

I think the entire nature of a "sex offender" needs to be revised.

[Moontanman]

Shouldn't these people be institutionalized rather than jailed?

 

Also... sex offender is such a broad category. It can apply to ridiculous cases of statutory rape, such as an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old, or even cases where minors make sexually explicit pictures of themselves available either through MMS (i.e. mobile phone text messages w\ pictures) or over the Internet.

 

I think the entire nature of a "sex offender" needs to be revised.

 

I agree, sex offender comes very close to defining anyone who has sex that you do not approve of. The nude pics of post pubescent minors being porn or illegal is definitely questionable. As a society we go from allowing just about anything sexually to allowing almost nothing sexually, the bar has moved a couple of times just in my lifetime.

 

As in most things the extremists seem to get the attention they want and the rest of us follow along because we don't want to be labeled by the extreme as part of the problem.

[Mr Skeptic]

Also... sex offender is such a broad category.

...

I think the entire nature of a "sex offender" needs to be revised.

 

I too am offended by the "sex offender" nonsense. You forgot to include "peeing in public" (on a bush visible from a public place) as one of the things that can make you a sex offender. I think "sex offender" needs to be restricted to cases of violence, drugging, or an adult having sex with a prepubescent.

 

Also, if they want to have longer sentences, they should have the people sentenced for longer and then let out those who are on good behavior, not randomly decide to extend people's sentences because they don't like them.

[Moontanman]

I remember when streaking was a popular "thing to do" now streaking could make you a sex offender and public enemy #1

[bascule]

You forgot to include "peeing in public" (on a bush visible from a public place) as one of the things that can make you a sex offender

 

I suppose I also forgot being naked in your own home with no intent for people outside to see.

[Pangloss]

What if the law were narrowly defined to include only cases where the predator were over the age of 30 and the victim under the age of 13?

 

I have grave concerns about re-imprisonment without a well-defined process and extremely objective evidence (as opposed to the highly opinionated judgment that seems to account for much of modern psychiatry), but one thing that I think sometimes happens in these discussions is that people throw out the issue because of the possibility of mature 15-year-olds posing as adults, etc. But surely a law can be defined to be exactly what we want it to be (and NOT want it to be), if the desire is there.

 

This comes up a lot in video game censorship discussion as well. You can't dismiss that issue as a simple case of overprotective parents, because just as there are mature 15-year-olds playing games there are also much younger children who may not be ready for them.

[bascule]

What if the law were narrowly defined to include only cases where the predator were over the age of 30 and the victim under the age of 13?

 

If they did their time, and are suspected of a mental illness but have otherwise done nothing wrong, they should be institutionalized, not thrown in jail. Unless you're a fan of "thought crime"

[Pangloss]

If they did their time, and are suspected of a mental illness but have otherwise done nothing wrong, they should be institutionalized, not thrown in jail. Unless you're a fan of "thought crime"

 

I think that's too easy. This is no half-baked breakout session from a tea party convention. They spent half a year on this and came to a 7-2 decision that clearly crossed normal ideological lines. I need to understand this before I can condemn it. Just because they ruled this way doesn't mean that they're in favor of never letting any sex offenders go.

[bascule]

They spent half a year on this and came to a 7-2 decision that clearly crossed normal ideological lines.

 

Or it touched upon a common generational aversion to sexual impropriety. I personally find this ruling appalling. If a sex offender is acting out, give him therapy; don't throw him in jail.

[Pangloss]

What therapy would you give them that has proven effective in greatly reducing recidivism rates?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BTW, apparently the government's case here was presented by... Elena Kagan.

 

Still think she's the best nominee for the job? (grin)

Edited May 18, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

What therapy would you give them that has proven effective in greatly reducing recidivism rates?

 

I don't know. Has jail proven particularly effective at reducing recidivism rates? Maybe if it's a jail like this:

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3509456.ece

 

BTW, just as a side note, apparently the government's case here was presented by... Elena Kagan.

 

Still think she's the best nominee for the job? (grin)

 

I have not expressed any support for her so far.

[Pangloss]

If they're in jail it doesn't matter if they're recidivist or not.

 

I can't read that web site.

[bascule]

If they're in jail it doesn't matter if they're recidivist or not.

 

If they're institutionalized it doesn't matter if they're recidivist or not.

 

I can't read that web site.

 

Here's a Time article:

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html

 

Ytz-pP8p1Bg

[iNow]

BTW, apparently the government's case here was presented by... Elena Kagan.

 

Still think she's the best nominee for the job? (grin)

 

That's pretty much a wholly irrelevant point, primarily since she was acting on behalf of her client, not herself. In essence, you are trying to put poo stinky on her for doing her job appropriately. (grin).

 

 

Haven't we spoken about you and well poisoning before, Pangloss?

[Pangloss]

That's pretty much a wholly irrelevant point, primarily since she was acting on behalf of her client, not herself. In essence, you are trying to put poo stinky on her for doing her job appropriately. (grin).

 

Haven't we spoken about you and well poisoning before, Pangloss?

 

Bwahaha! Um, iNow, her "client" was the Obama Administration! (rofl)

 

Ladies and gentlemen, Elena Kagan: Staunch defender of the progressive movement!

 

But hey, any time there's a conversation about well-poisoning, iNow, I know you can be found nearby. And thanks for so-casually dismissing one of the main liberal objections to John Roberts! (grin)

 

----------

 

If they're institutionalized it doesn't matter if they're recidivist or not.

 

That's fine, did I misinterpret this?

 

If a sex offender is acting out, give him therapy; don't throw him in jail.

 

You mean give them therapy under lock and key, then, as in your earlier point of institutionalizing them?

 

Doesn't matter to me where you lock them up. If the cost is about the same, or if the cost is higher but it leads to better science, I'm fine with that.

 

But I think we're on the same page regarding double jeopardy, at least as a concern.

[iNow]

Bwahaha! Um, iNow, her "client" was the Obama Administration! (rofl)

Again, irrelevant since she was doing her job and representing her client.

 

 

And thanks for so-casually dismissing one of the main liberal objections to John Roberts!

And, as with Kagan, those objections were wholly irrelevant when applied to Roberts, too.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too, Pangloss. On the one hand, you want to lambaste "liberals" for suggesting Roberts was not well suited for the court due to doing his job, then in the very next breath you do the same thing when suggesting Kagan is not.

 

I truly do want you to educate yourself on the poisoning of the well logical fallacy. Your posts and your readers of them will appreciate it if you'd stop doing it.

 

 

 

Bwahaha! Um, iNow, her "client" was

the Obama Administration

! (rofl)

 

Ladies and gentlemen, Elena Kagan: Staunch defender of the progressive movement!

[Pangloss]

Yes, her client, who just five months later appointed her to the same Supreme Court. Hmm, I wonder if her opinion accurately reflects their point of view on the subject she was arguing for them?

 

I'm not sure what's funnier, the fact that the Obama administration has let down progressives on such a core belief, or the fact that the administration's official representative of that opinion is the youngest Supreme Court nominee in a quarter century and is likely to sit on that bench for the next couple of generations. Either way the political irony is absolutely delicious.

[padren]

I have to agree that if the person still poses a threat, then generally they should be institutionalized and receive therapy, like any other mental illness where an individual posses a threat to themselves or others if it is the result of mental defect.

 

I also agree that the term "sex offender" is damagingly oversimplified. Not just in the cases of "peeing on a bush" to assaults, but the fact the causes range from banal (such as the urination example) to mental issues, to the callously criminal.

 

(1) Some people take sex the way other criminals take money by assaulting victims, and criminals of both types often enjoy the violence they use to do it. They should be treated like any other criminal, serving time to fit the crime committed, but I can't understand how you could add jail time to one type and not the other.

 

(2) Others have various issues (hardwiring or psychological) and thus feel obsessive compulsions towards behavior that cannot legally or morally be fulfilled. When people like this commit crimes they (rightfully, imo) go to jail and serve a sentence for what they did, and the reason isn't resolved.

 

But is the reason their fault? This is not saying acting on those reasons isn't their fault or responsibility, but once time is served they have no debt to society.

 

The sad fact is these groups get conflated. I can understand the rationale behind being cautious about letting someone who has "tasted blood" back onto the streets, whether its rape or non-sexual violence that gets them going. But the dividing line is between people we release we consider a threat, and those that aren't. If almost all rapist fall on one side of that dividing line that would be fair, but it's still wrong to draw it in the wrong place.

Personally, I think it's drawn in the wrong spot out of cowardice, because the issue of violent criminal reoffenders, their rights and public safety is too touchy to address straight on, regardless of where that debate may lead.

[bascule]

You mean give them therapy under lock and key, then, as in your earlier point of institutionalizing them?

 

Doesn't matter to me where you lock them up. If the cost is about the same, or if the cost is higher but it leads to better science, I'm fine with that.

 

But I think we're on the same page regarding double jeopardy, at least as a concern.

 

It's not really an issue of double jeopardy at all for me. If someone is an imminent threat to themselves or others due to mental illness, I don't object to institutionalization. Whether or not they've previously committed a "sex offense" is irrelevant to me.

[Severian]

It's not really an issue of double jeopardy at all for me. If someone is an imminent threat to themselves or others due to mental illness, I don't object to institutionalization. Whether or not they've previously committed a "sex offense" is irrelevant to me.

 

I would agree with that.

 

In fact, this would be my only reason for putting someone in prison or (better) in a rehabilitation centre or institution. I don't believe in outdated concepts like "justice" or "fairness" or someone deserving to be incarcerated.

[ParanoiA]

It's not really an issue of double jeopardy at all for me. If someone is an imminent threat to themselves or others due to mental illness, I don't object to institutionalization. Whether or not they've previously committed a "sex offense" is irrelevant to me.

 

I agree with this, though the whole notion of the government labeling a citizen as an imminent threat and then institutionalizing them is offensive. After all, we know how they've handled eminent domain. I'm not sure "imminent", nor "eminent" are words the government can use responsibly.

 

But I think it has to be done that way. We can't allow the state to unilaterally increase sentences at their whim because they've got a "feeling" some guy is going to be a threat. I've got a feeling this fella here at work is a part-time serial killer, but that's not enough to incarcerate him, so I hardly see how extending incarceration is any more justifiable.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Severian]

I've got a feeling this fella here at work is a part-time serial killer

 

Well, with a name like ParanoiA...

[swansont]

Bwahaha! Um, iNow, her "client" was the Obama Administration! (rofl)

 

So? This is a similar rationale used to smear DoJ lawyers by calling the the "al Qaeda 7." Defense lawyers, for example, don't have to believe their client is innocent in order to take the case, they take it because everyone has the right to a defense. AFAIK, lawyers are ethically bound to do their best no matter what the issue is before the court.

 

The position being proffered is the position of the government, and not necessarily the lawyer who is representing them. It just may be that the lawyer for the government is in that position, arguing before the Supreme court, simply because he/she is a good lawyer. How awful to then consider them for the bench.

[Pangloss]

"So" it's a statement about the Obama administration's position on the issue, and the Obama administration went on to nominate that candidate five months later. Sure there are other factors involved, of course there are. But for ideologues who want candidates with the correct ideological list this is both a setback and an ironic twist.