Supreme Court Ruling

ursen

ursen

Officer SOE/LoE/Where's "here"?
I am not sure if this is appropriate for our Guild forum, but it is something that we should be very aware of. The Supreme court passed down a ruling today here is the text of the CNN story on it.

"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."


The only appropriate response is this quote from Martin Niemöller made during the Nazi rule.

"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."
 
I'll have to look at that one - odd that the liberal and conservative wings are in agreement. There must be something else they ruled on besides civil liberties. Thanks for bringing it up.
 
Abba San said:
There must be something else they ruled on besides civil liberties. Thanks for bringing it up.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, we talked about this in Government today. And it might be my cynical side saying they probably just cashed in on some vote trading..
 
Stc95 said:
But then wouldn't those offenders get life sentences? Instead of 7 years plus indefinite imprisonment.
Click to expand...

I think it would be more like the convict has shown that he will likely continue in a like behavior after being released, possibly essentially admitting to commit the crime before the fact.
 
First off the essence of the issue is not the type of offence, it is the willingness to take away an essential guarantee in the Constitution, that of due process. If there had been a question of recidivism that should be taken care of at sentencing, not later with a decision after the sentence of the law had been met. When does someone else for something else be decided a threat to the community and imprisoned without due process. We have seen the willingness to bypass due process before. Just ask Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans who were interred and imprisoned during WWII. What makes this even more frightening is that the Supreme Court has put their stamp of approval on this idea. Read the comments at CNN and it is even scarier the number of people who would take a vengeful and brutal approach bypassing due process. Did I serve in the military so that we could sink to new lows in freedom and justice? I certainly hope not. Micah 6:8
 
It is troubling. Maybe one day they will determine that Christians are a threat to society and should be locked away indefinitely.
 
Interesting you should post that quote, I read it just yesterday at the Holocaust Museum in DC.

And you are right. It might seem like a "good idea" to do that to criminals. "Protect the children!" "Clean up the streets!" but what happens when it is you on the other side of the street sweeper?

While closer monitoring of sex offenders might be a good idea, indefinite imprisonment is ridiculous and should be insulting to any American who claims this is a "free" nation.

And the sad reality is, this won't be the end. It is only the first step. "OK...they don't mind if we lock up sex offenders until whenever....so what about *insert group of people here*?"

"OK, they didn't mind sex offenders or *insert group of people here*, so what about *this group*?"

"People should not fear their government. A government should fear it's people" - V for Vendetta.

Joey.
 
RubberDucky said:
"People should not fear their government. A government should fear it's people" - V for Vendetta.
Click to expand...
Along the same lines: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
 
RubberDucky said:
Interesting you should post that quote, I read it just yesterday at the Holocaust Museum in DC.

And you are right. It might seem like a "good idea" to do that to criminals. "Protect the children!" "Clean up the streets!" but what happens when it is you on the other side of the street sweeper?

While closer monitoring of sex offenders might be a good idea, indefinite imprisonment is ridiculous and should be insulting to any American who claims this is a "free" nation.

And the sad reality is, this won't be the end. It is only the first step. "OK...they don't mind if we lock up sex offenders until whenever....so what about *insert group of people here*?"

"OK, they didn't mind sex offenders or *insert group of people here*, so what about *this group*?"

"People should not fear their government. A government should fear it's people" - V for Vendetta.

Joey.
Click to expand...

I think one of the key points some of you are missing here are as follows:

1. When you are convicted of a felony you lose certain rights as well as while incarcerated you lose even more (this coming from a 3 time felon)

2. This is not explained completely the circumstances would for further incarceration would be in situations of the sex offender who tells his parole board when asked will you do it again, and respond "of course why wouldn't I." at that point there is nothing the parole board can do if their time served is up except let them go until now. If a sex offender says they are going to do it again good keep them locked up.

There is a fine line in defense of this being a "oh no what will be next" and what in reality is a confirmed and announce re-commiter of a crime stating it will happen again. I am sorry if any convicted (these are people found guilty by either a judge or their peers) sex offender says they are going to do it again do I look at the aspect of but wait he is a human he has rights or do I look at the fact this person stated they will do it again and I then do not defend the victims that are going to then be this persons next target?
 
Unfetered said:
I think one of the key points some of you are missing here are as follows:

1. When you are convicted of a felony you lose certain rights as well as while incarcerated you lose even more (this coming from a 3 time felon)

2. This is not explained completely the circumstances would for further incarceration would be in situations of the sex offender who tells his parole board when asked will you do it again, and respond "of course why wouldn't I." at that point there is nothing the parole board can do if their time served is up except let them go until now. If a sex offender says they are going to do it again good keep them locked up.

There is a fine line in defense of this being a "oh no what will be next" and what in reality is a confirmed and announce re-commiter of a crime stating it will happen again. I am sorry if any convicted (these are people found guilty by either a judge or their peers) sex offender says they are going to do it again do I look at the aspect of but wait he is a human he has rights or do I look at the fact this person stated they will do it again and I then do not defend the victims that are going to then be this persons next target?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does revoke certain rights, for a set amount of time agreed upon at the time of conviction. You are innocent until proven guilty, this applies just as much after your sentence is expired as it does before anyone gets convicted in the first place. I'm very glad I don't live in the United States.
 
OrryW said:
Yes, it does revoke certain rights, for a set amount of time agreed upon at the time of conviction. You are innocent until proven guilty, this applies just as much after your sentence is expired as it does before anyone gets convicted in the first place. I'm very glad I don't live in the United States.
Click to expand...

there is no set amount of time agreed upon for revocation of rights it is all standard for convicted felons aside from the extra rights sex offenders lose.

This ruling is for convicted sex offenders so they were found guilty so the before or innocent until proven guilty makes no sense in response.

Bold is really annoying when people use it to try to make a point with certain words.
 
Unfetered said:
there is no set amount of time agreed upon for revocation of rights it is all standard for convicted felons aside from the extra rights sex offenders lose.

This ruling is for convicted sex offenders so they were found guilty so the before or innocent until proven guilty makes no sense in response.

Bold is really annoying when people use it to try to make a point with certain words.
Click to expand...

Except that's what bold is used for, emphasis.

And there is a set time, it's called a sentence. It's how courts work, the time is set based on the crime as a punishment, when the sentence is served they have paid for the crime they have committed and any possible future crimes are completely irrelevant. They are being held because they may re-offend, not because of their past crimes, because, like I said, after their sentence is expired they can't be charged again for that crime. If you get a speeding ticket, they don't ask you to pay it every week after you get it, because when you pay once you have completed the debt you owe. They are innocent of future offences, so guilty until proven innocent fully applies.
 
The big separation seems to be in the thought that you can be held longer than you've been sentenced. If the laws state you can be held indefinitely, than we've come to accept that for the most severe cases, and several states have already put similar punishments in place.

That I'm cool with. I understand that murderers may get 25-to-life or face execution. If my state says that sexual predators that prey upon children face the same, so be it. I think that OrryW summed it up perfectly.

If you get a speeding ticket, they don't ask you to pay it every week after you get it,
Click to expand...

Once you have met the maximum legal sentence, I don't believe it is lawful to hold you any further. I understand that repeat felons lose specific sets of rights, but fair trial, no double indemnity, etc etc are still irrevocable rights granted to all citizens of the US.
 
OrryW said:
Except that's what bold is used for, emphasis.

And there is a set time, it's called a sentence. It's how courts work, the time is set based on the crime as a punishment, when the sentence is served they have paid for the crime they have committed and any possible future crimes are completely irrelevant. They are being held because they may re-offend, not because of their past crimes, because, like I said, after their sentence is expired they can't be charged again for that crime. If you get a speeding ticket, they don't ask you to pay it every week after you get it, because when you pay once you have completed the debt you owe. They are innocent of future offences, so guilty until proven innocent fully applies.
Click to expand...

You are partially correct. The set time has nothing to do with your sentence for your rights. Your rights are taken at time of sentencing correct but if you are sentenced for 2 days you do not get your rights back after two days or even after 14 days infact you are unable to apply for a restoration of rights until all ties with the judicial system are cut so in the case of sexual offenders this is never. And again as my example showed if you were a speeder and t old a police officer thanks for the ticket im going to speed again anyways i would be more than happy for that cop to give you another ticket. It has nothing to do with being recharged with a crime you already commited it has to do with stopping someone from doing a crime they are going to commit or have voiced they will commit./
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top