Supreme Court Ruling

ursen

ursen

Officer SOE/LoE/Where's "here"?
No commentary from me the ruling speaks for itself. Check it out on CNN.


"Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely
The Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to indefinitely keep some sex offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences, if officials determine those inmates may prove "sexually dangerous" in the future.

"The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority."


This here is a comment attributed to Martin Niemöller during the Nazi reign in Europe.:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemöller
 
The question I have is whether or not the individual has to undergo another trial to extend their sentence or not. If not, yeah, that's bad.
 
There was a sister thread posted in... Redeemed? (somewhere, can't remember exactly where) yesterday, and it basically came down to this: Our government has established limitations, and one of them is that they cannot take away your freedom without due process.

Ya know, you go to court, tried by a judge or your peers, they find you innocent or guilty based on evidence presented. If found guilty, you are sentenced to incarceration for an amount of time (most things have an acceptable time range attached to them, as well as options for community service, classes, etc). We all understand that part.

Now what the Supreme Court has done is allowed the jail to decide that you're not allowed to leave, even if the judge says that you been imprisoned for the maximum amount of time allowable by law.

It isn't necessarily a case of sex offenders that bothers me, it's that the Supreme Court (who are supposed to interpret the law, not make new laws by ruling from the bench) have effectively created a new series of laws with no legal precedent. Further, they're issuing the ability for the government to take away the freedom of a citizen beyond what is currently legally possible.

The problem I have is that it becomes a slippery slope. Ok, first sex offenders are hit with this. Next it's the drunk drivers. Then it's drug traffickers. Then it's drug users. Then it's this group, then it's that group.... at some point, it will come around to the point that the prison administrators are arbitrarily holding people just because they want to. I know it's reaching a bit, but at what point are Christians going to be termed extremists or preaching "hate speech" and get us tossed in lockup....(these things are already happening around the world)... then held just because our views are unpopular?

I'd rather see the pedophile living next door than to have him imprisoned improperly. It just opens the door to a big nest of problems.
 
Randy, I see where you're coming from... The sad truth is that most criminals in the United States do not serve out their terms. Almost no one who is sentenced to the maximum extent under the law actually serves a sentence in accordance with said law.

But, agreed. A very slippery slope indeed. I would be more outraged at this ruling if I didn't feel that the current system is corrupt beyond repair.
 
For me it's a really confusing area.

Durruck said:
I'd rather see the pedophile living next door than to have him imprisoned improperly. It just opens the door to a big nest of problems.
Click to expand...

It does. However... having the pedophile (not the recovered, repentant pedophile, but the one tagged 'very likely to re-offend') living next door also opens to door to a big nest of problems. Potentially problems with your own kids.


I think due process of law is required, but I hope that this law allows competent prison psychologists, judges, or officials to bounce "likely to re-offend" sex criminals back in front of the due process of law, instead of having to stand there and look stricken while waiting for the inevitable new crime to occur.

To clarify, I mean having a new case at the end of the sentence to re-evaluate.
 
I know exactly what you mean, and I don't honestly want unrepentant, violent sex offenders living next to me. But unjustified law-changes from the bench don't make it right, either.

The point remains. They have been tried, sentenced, and served their time. Our Constitution, Bill of Rights says that you cannot be re-tried for the same offense (that is, no double-indemnity), and that you have the right to a fair trial before you are punished. The Supreme Court has just bypassed that Constitutionally-guaranteed pair of rights by saying it's okay to hold people longer than they're supposed to be held - without a second crime, without a second trial - regardless of what their original sentence was.

Reading more into the case since my last post, the federal Supreme Court added this as a federal power. This had previously been a power of the individual states (and there are such provisions as part of the sentencing in 20 states for sex-related crimes; All have "x years to life" sentences for murder, etc). What's outrageous about this is that the federal government has just taken more local enforcement away and put it on the federal level, while they're ignoring other significant federal responsibilities, such as border protection.

Slight US government lesson for those that aren't familiar. The US Government is set up in such that they're supposed to provide things like national security, regulate interstate commerce, yada yada. Any power not specifically taken at the Fed level is deemed a State or Local issue. 20 states have already claimed power over open-ended prison time. All 50 states define their own penal code. The Fed is tromping all over at least 20 states, and it appears that the other 30's ability to self-regulate is being taken away.

What's interesting is the article that I read indicated that perpetrators of sexual crimes are less likely to repeat offend than drug addicts/dealers and general violent offenders. Yet those groups get tossed back on the street all the time with little notice.

Also interesting note: At least one state performs castration/sterilization in attempts to curb the desires of some of the most aggressive sexual offenders.
 
one thing not mentioned here, and am not certain i have read/heard it anywhere, is if they do any sort of review of each prisoner.

if they do that and do it every so often. then i do not mind so much. like most things, if done right it isn't an issue. but most things are not done right are they?
 
even if the process was done right, it's method of implementation is wrong. The Court is creating federal power, which is the responsibility of the Executive and Legislative branches of the government. Further, it's giving itself power and controls that it has usurped from the state and local authorities.

What they've done is just wrong on multiple levels, even if you agree that the penalties need to be harder (upto and including lifetime incarceration/death penalties) for a specific crime.
 
The Supreme Court did not make this law, they only judged the constitutionality of a current law:

The law in question is the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which includes a provision allowing indefinite confinement of sex offenders. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled lawmakers had overstepped their authority by passing it, prompting the current high court appeal.
Click to expand...

Ron White said it well: "If you're a convicted child molester, I don't care about your rights anymore...."

That about sums up my thoughts about this subject.

Now, people aren't sent to prison just to keep them away from innocent people. They are sent there in an effort to change their ways so that when they are released, they will be deterred from performing the same acts again. (The simple fact that prisoners have a release date supports this notion.) If they are not changed by the time their release date nears, then by all means they should be kept in prison. If they wanted to keep their guaranteed liberties, they should not have performed such acts in the first place.

I find it hard to believe that this would turn into a slippery slope and sooner or later Christians would be condemned because of their beliefs - Christians are the majority and largely control what laws are put in place.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html
 
Last edited:
However, Christians are becoming less of a majority every year...

I am for increasing the lawful punishment of sex offenders, but any ruling such as this which blatantly ignores the original sentence of a convicted person is scary. Please review how Hitler came into power - he said a lot of things which made sense in the context of the times, and changed some laws 'only for exceptional purposes'. Of course these exceptions became the rule. This is not fear mongering, its history.
 
Xandar said:
However, Christians are becoming less of a majority every year...

I am for increasing the lawful punishment of sex offenders, but any ruling such as this which blatantly ignores the original sentence of a convicted person is scary. Please review how Hitler came into power - he said a lot of things which made sense in the context of the times, and changed some laws 'only for exceptional purposes'. Of course these exceptions became the rule. This is not fear mongering, its history.
Click to expand...

So the natural conclusion to this law would be Christians being condemned and sent to prison. Yeah, that's not a far fetch...

Where some of you get your ideas from I'll never know. However, as Christians you should know better; why get caught up in worldly things? Sure, I find it interesting. Sure, I think it's unconstitutional. But whatever happened to "In this world you will have tribulation, but take heart! For I have overcome the world" or "Do not worry"?

Now, I know someone here is going to get the "but, but" stick out, so let me politely point out.. don't let your ideas run away and guide the decisions you make or how you view the world. Master them.
 
Last edited:
Durruck said:
There was a sister thread posted in... Redeemed? (somewhere, can't remember exactly where) yesterday, and it basically came down to this: Our government has established limitations, and one of them is that they cannot take away your freedom without due process.

Ya know, you go to court, tried by a judge or your peers, they find you innocent or guilty based on evidence presented. If found guilty, you are sentenced to incarceration for an amount of time (most things have an acceptable time range attached to them, as well as options for community service, classes, etc). We all understand that part.

Now what the Supreme Court has done is allowed the jail to decide that you're not allowed to leave, even if the judge says that you been imprisoned for the maximum amount of time allowable by law.

It isn't necessarily a case of sex offenders that bothers me, it's that the Supreme Court (who are supposed to interpret the law, not make new laws by ruling from the bench) have effectively created a new series of laws with no legal precedent. Further, they're issuing the ability for the government to take away the freedom of a citizen beyond what is currently legally possible.

The problem I have is that it becomes a slippery slope. Ok, first sex offenders are hit with this. Next it's the drunk drivers. Then it's drug traffickers. Then it's drug users. Then it's this group, then it's that group.... at some point, it will come around to the point that the prison administrators are arbitrarily holding people just because they want to. I know it's reaching a bit, but at what point are Christians going to be termed extremists or preaching "hate speech" and get us tossed in lockup....(these things are already happening around the world)... then held just because our views are unpopular?

I'd rather see the pedophile living next door than to have him imprisoned improperly. It just opens the door to a big nest of problems.
Click to expand...

These laws were not just created they have been expanded, Patriot Act anyone? It is the same basis applied to new offenses.
 
Xandar said:
However, Christians are becoming less of a majority every year...

I am for increasing the lawful punishment of sex offenders, but any ruling such as this which blatantly ignores the original sentence of a convicted person is scary. Please review how Hitler came into power - he said a lot of things which made sense in the context of the times, and changed some laws 'only for exceptional purposes'. Of course these exceptions became the rule. This is not fear mongering, its history.
Click to expand...

Why is it that everyone equates something scary with Hitler? Germany was not blindfolded and hijacked by a 7-2 majority vote. Hitler won over Germany largely because he spoke to people's hearts because of how charismatic he was, not to mention he told them what they wanted to hear.

Christianity is currently the largest religion (78.5%) in the United States. (I know thats from Wikipedia, and I hate using Wikipedia for sourcing data, but the source they use is from the US Census Bureau.) Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus comprise 4.6%. No religion is approximately 16.1%.

Christians will not become the minority for some time. Again, a slippery slope? I think not. :)

Unfetered said:
These laws were not just created they have been expanded, Patriot Act anyone? It is the same basis applied to new offenses.
Click to expand...

The Patriot Act comes dangerously close to violating Griswold v. Connecticut (constitutional right to privacy).
 
Bah, you and I both know that 78.5% is a bogus number. The Census bureau even cites that the number does not include non-responses. It also includes some radical Christian off-shoots that do not even identify themselves as Christians anymore (and some that teach very un-Christian principles)

Matthew 7:

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people that live under some misguided view that just because their great grandparents were Christians (truly, honestly God-fearing, Bible-reading Christ-following Christians) that they're Christians too.... without ever lifting a finger to try to live for Christ, without truly being a Christian. What percent of that 78.5% live like they're supposed to on Wednesday, not just on Sunday morning for that 75 minutes that they're daydreaming in the pew, or sleeping in because church just "isn't their thing"?

How many of that 78.5% even believe that the Bible is God's word? How many people believe that Jesus wasn't resurrected? How many people don't believe in the miracles Jesus performed? How many people don't believe that God spoke at Jesus' baptism? How many people claim to be Christians and yet have never read the first page of the New Testament (and I'm not talking people with learning disabilities or cannot read). How many people aren't sure that Jesus is God's only Son. How many people deny the virgin birth? How many people ...

I come from a wholesome small town area with about 10,000 people. less than 1 in 10 even would likely pass Jesus' test above. And that's being generous. And I'm not saying that to judge others. I know I've made a huge mess of my life trying to do things my way before. I'm just trying to be realistic. 78.5% from a census statistic means nothing to me, nor should it to you.

Slippery slope? Absolutely. Most people don't know that the same thing has already happened in England. By preaching that homosexuality is a sin, a pastor got arrested. Canada wants to make it a crime to make anti-gay remarks. How about an American preacher arrested? Another possible source.

At what point is it okay to trod all over the freedoms that we are promised because another group doesn't like it? Saying that Group1's rights mean less because of a bad decision leads to further rules about Group2, Group3, and Group4. I know it's a mocking movie, but have you ever seen the movie "PCU" - where everyone is politically correct? It potentially getting closer.

If we're not allowed to read the Bible in public without being accused of propagating hate speech because our Lord condemns homosexuality (as well as every other sin)... how long until we have to water it down and just tell that Jesus saved us from.... the nothing that we're doing wrong because it's all okay?

Unacceptable. And it starts with the unlawfully taking away freedoms from individual, unpopular groups.
 
Great post, Durruck, thanks.

Let's approach it from another angle though. I think we're assuming that we've had these freedoms all along, and we haven't. It's only been in the last 230 years (and only in select countries, probably thanks to the Pilgrims), perhaps a bit longer, that a large society has been free to profess their Christian faith. People being arrested for speaking out on their beliefs is nothing new, I'm not sure why we're surprised to see it. Also, Jesus recognized that our profession and sharing would be unpopular, so why do we think people will welcome our testimony with open arms?

Back on the point just real quick I want to add a few things:
#1, I don't know what's happening with the law, but if it's true as you described it then I think it's a step in the wrong direction.
#2, I entirely disagree with the quote OP used to somehow attribute this law to the loss of rights for everyone. That is a huge stretch, and completely unrelated imo.
#3, I've seen this paranoia elsewhere, and I think we should refrain from it. Not only is it unhealthy, but it misguides us. We become fearful of something that never happened , and it takes over our thoughts, and creates an unwarranted bias against other people who think differently (I'm thinking partly of the Tea Party movement and the Michigan Hutaree militia, among others).
 
Last edited:
Angus_Og said:
so is a pedophile living behind your house.
Click to expand...
the "threat" of pedophiles has been overblown to such an extent that folks are afraid of the word..much less the people. If you are willing to allow the continued usurping of the Constitution then you'll be the one they come after..
 
Couple of thoughts here for everyone who has posted in this thread. I'm going to be blunt and shoot from the hip on this one:

1) You've been trolled. No offense to the O.P., but he tossed this bone in here and hasn't said jack all since. Waiting for all the dogs to come after the bone and start tearing each other to bits. This is a discussion forum, and yet the O.P. has not replied to this thread. I'm calling him out on that one. If I were a moderator, which I'm not, I'd be seriously looking into his post history to see if he does this a lot, although he could also genuinely be a concerned American trying to raise awareness of the issue.


2)
[gfc#6]suicidebomber said:
the "threat" of pedophiles has been overblown to such an extent that folks are afraid of the word..much less the people.
Click to expand...

I would challenge that thinking. I spent my mid-late teen years in a small town outside Edmonton, AB. Now, I had at the time a gifting (the gift of foolishness?) that caused me to often come into contact with this sort of thing, but, of the fifteen teenage girls that I was friends with in that town, thirteen of them had been raped by family members before they were twelve. I do not say this lightly.

Pedophiles are more than just a "threat." Not if you are a young woman.

The other two (the non-raped girls) were cousins of mine. I am extremely blessed with a very thoroughly Christian family, where it didn't happen. As far as I could tell at a young age, it might happen in 10% of unsaved families. That's probably WAAAAY over the top to say, but where I was living, it sure felt like it.

I do feel that it is higher in non-religious families than religious ones, but I don't have (nor care to go looking for) stats on this.

These attacks are covered up by families through fear, be it fear of the family member, fear of the fallout if it comes out, fear of society's judgment, or sheer stupid hope that it just goes away.

The real threat of the pedophile, I'd say, isn't the ones on TV -- it's the ones in our homes, in our families.

Nowadays, I'm in much healthier circles. I know about 4 or 5 women in these healthier circles who were raped before they were 12. Usually this causes long-term psychological problems that they have to fight their whole lives. Go figure.


3) Comparing pastors to pedophiles is like comparing apples to water dogwood. Just saying.
 
Nice post Bowser. You made some great points.

Durruck - preaching the gospel/spreading the word and making hateful remarks are very different. When I say this I have the Southern Baptist Association in mind. Picketing homosexual events with signs saying "God Hates Fags" isn't exactly spreading the word effectively. They actually do these things (i.e. persecute people) in the name of God, which sadly, to be honest, kind of makes me embarrassed to be a Christian. I am not saying that all talks about homosexuality are inherently derogatory or anything of the sort, but they can easily devolve into such talks.

I am aware and I acknowledge that the Bible categorizes homosexuals as sinners because of the way their lives are lived. However, that sin is no greater or less than the sin the rest of the world partakes in. So what's the big deal? Everyone everywhere choses to sin - daily.

Back on topic - I honestly think its a vast leap from child molesters to Christians. Too big. Even if the population of Christians isn't 79% of the US population (which I admit is quite high), we are still the most populous of any group.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top