Indefinite Detention

[Etherealsage]

http://www.infowars.com/supremes-rule-in-favor-of-indefinite-detention/


The Supreme Court has ruled that people considered “sexually dangerous� can be held indefinitely.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18offenders.html


WASHINGTON — In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.

The 7-to-2 decision touched off a heated debate among the justices on a question that has lately engaged the Tea Party movement and opponents of the new health care law: What limits does the Constitution impose on Congress’s power to legislate on matters not specifically delegated to it in Article I?

The federal law at issue in the case allows the government to continue to detain prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct, suffered from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves. If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by “clear and convincing� evidence — a heightened standard, but short of “beyond a reasonable doubt� — it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or a state assumes responsibility for them.

The challenge to the civil commitment law was brought by five prisoners. The case of Graydon Comstock was typical. In November 2006, six days before Mr. Comstock was to have completed a 37-month sentence for receiving child pornography, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales certified that Mr. Comstock was a sexually dangerous person.

This doesn't seem so bad, right? But with a little digging:

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/incarcerated-indefinitely-without-trial


The guy in the article had a Japanese Comic book that has lolicon (grown women dressed as children) images. He was arrested simply for that on the charges of Child Porn.

And, to add further insult to injury, this means they were illustrated pictures.
.
.
.
You know, I'm used to the US making retarded laws, and carrying out existing laws in retarded ways (http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/09/there-is-fury-and-and-sadness-inside.html), but this is just extra sad.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

[barrylevon]

This is retarded. Only in a land of sleeping fools could something like this happen. The amount of things that can get one labeled as a sexual predator are ridiculous. Piss by the side of the road? Sex offender. 18 with a 17 1/2 yr old girlfriend? Sex offender. Attempt to lecture a minor for stepping out into traffic like some sleep walking fool? Sex offender. Congratulations, we're all sex offenders. Now we all must register as such, and have the authorities monitor our every action.

Sorry for the paranoia, but is that not where all this will eventually lead? If every action, that can be taken by others as being sexual, leads to being labeled a sexual offender won't we all be labeled as such? And then this (OP) bullshit. Not that it's something new, now there's just a justification.

Another effect? What happens when everyone is an offender? Doesn't being a sex offender lose the stigma it once had? It'll become a rite of passage. "So what did you get yours for?"
"I pissed by the road"
"That's all? I molested my kid sister."
"Whoa dude, that's awesome"

Okay, so that might be going a little too far. Is it though? How often have we been wrong in our forecasts of the future, at least so far as the negative? The dreams turn out to be nothing but just that, while the nightmares seem to come true all the time. That which we consider to be taboo, or existing soley on the fringe, today, will ultimately become the norm of tomorrow. Yaay, for the children. They're surely to inherit a wonderful place.

[oxyjen]

The state and government have been involuntarily committing people for decades if they can make a case that the person is a danger to themselves or others. So far I haven't read anything that makes this instance qualitatively different, could someone point out to me if I'm missing something?

Land of sleeping fools indeed.

[Etherealsage]

The state and government have been involuntarily committing people for decades if they can make a case that the person is a danger to themselves or others. So far I haven't read anything that makes this instance qualitatively different, could someone point out to me if I'm missing something?

Land of sleeping fools indeed.
The difference here is that this man's offense was in possession of illustrated pictures. As in, drawn art.

[barrylevon]

The state and government have been involuntarily committing people for decades if they can make a case that the person is a danger to themselves or others. So far I haven't read anything that makes this instance qualitatively different, could someone point out to me if I'm missing something?

Land of sleeping fools indeed.

Right. When I said "now there's just a justification." I meant "another". I thought about editing, but then I realized it's pretty obvious that there are other instances. Shit, national security risk, there's one.


Though now it seems that case is easier to prove. National security is a rather controversial button, where sexual offenders are not. Most people wouldn't/don't bat an eye at a sex offender even being stoned to death.

[Etherealsage]

Right. When I said "now there's just a justification." I meant "another". I thought about editing, but then I realized it's pretty obvious that there are other instances. Shit, national security risk, there's one.
Yep. It is unnerving that any American citizen can be detained for this. Any non-citizen too, really, but it's usually less fishy to detain a prisoner of war. Usually.


Though now it seems that case is easier to prove. National security is a rather controversial button, where sexual offenders are not. Most people wouldn't/don't bat an eye at a sex offender even being stoned to death.
Or bother to look into the details of the crime. Oh, sex offender. Kill him. They'd change their tune if they found out they were convicted of rape at 10 years old for show me yours and I'll show you mine (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280786/Boys-aged-10-11-guilty-attempted-rape-year-old-girl.html) (not U.S. for once, but that doesn't make me feel better).

[oxyjen]

The difference here is that this man's offense was in possession of illustrated pictures. As in, drawn art.

Then that's a case of the original sentencing. What I'm referring to is the ruling that confirms the legitimacy of the federal government being able to commit someone against their will. I'm guessing they have to be referring to placement in jail as opposed to a psychiatric facility? I need to find some better articles to get some clarification, because it sounds like there is an aspect to this which is new.




Though now it seems that case is easier to prove. National security is a rather controversial button, where sexual offenders are not. Most people wouldn't/don't bat an eye at a sex offender even being stoned to death.

People might even pay to attend the stoning. NBC had even mentioned the possibility of bringing back To Catch a Predator even after one of the men profiled shot himself and NBC settled the lawsuit with the family.

[barrylevon]

Yep. It is unnerving that any American citizen can be detained for this. Any non-citizen too, really, but it's usually less fishy to detain a prisoner of war. Usually.

I wasn't talking about non-citizens. I was talking about citizens being detained, but that's another thread entirely.



Or bother to look into the details of the crime. Oh, sex offender. Kill him. They'd change their tune if they found out they were convicted of rape at 10 years old for show me yours and I'll show you mine (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280786/Boys-aged-10-11-guilty-attempted-rape-year-old-girl.html) (not U.S. for once, but that doesn't make me feel better).

I try to explain these things to people as they search for sexual offenders in the area. I realize why people do it, and the need that is felt for security, but they don't think about the vast number of reasons for the label. The one people are usually (arguably replaced with "only") concerned with is child molestation, and rightfully so. But the assumption is often made that all sexual offenders in the area are pedophiles.


People might even pay to attend the stoning. NBC had even mentioned the possibility of bringing back To Catch a Predator even after one of the men profiled shot himself and NBC settled the lawsuit with the family.

Well, that's because people are most entertained by other people's pain. "better you than I", or "sucks to be you". The "justice" involved is just an excuse.

Though I think the law was meant to be applied to them, and to rapists. Again, rightfully so.