Welcome to PatsFans.com

Some Bad News For Knee Jerkers

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Harry Boy, May 17, 2010.

  1. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,169
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +353 / 1 / -9

  2. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    99
    Ratings:
    +154 / 2 / -1

    Curious to hear what the other "small government" folks here think about this.

    While the people affected in this case are about as low as you get, this kind of law imo is a clear overreach by the government and has very dangerous ramifications.

    I'm guessing that the Supreme Court decision here is very narrow and that this law will wind up being overturned on other grounds.
  3. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Yes, this is horrible. Anyone convicted of a crime and serves their sentence deserves to be free.

    It is the Judges and Jury's job to determine how long they should be detained.

    If Judges are worried they won't be rehabilitated, give them a life sentence, with a parol hearing every year to determine their ability to safely be released into society.
  4. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    What kind of "small government" people are you looking for? Fiscal conservatives who are more interested in Federal entitlement programs and don't really care or libertarians who hate the cops?
  5. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,429
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +360 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    Just a few points:

    1) Today's Supreme Court simply upheld a 2006 ruling that allows the federal government to provide for the continued detention of sexually dangerous federal inmates who have completed their prison terms.

    The Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that U.S. states could confine dangerous sex offenders to mental institutions after they served their sentences - the current administration has argued that the federal government also has the same authority.

    That right was granted in 2006 and upheld today.

    2) Federal Law defines sexually dangerous as someone who suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder who would have difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.

    So, in other words, once a person is defined as "sexually dangerous" he has been pre-diagnosed as suffering from a serious mental illness or disorder - which means the state (or the government) can confine him to a mental institution.

    Prisoners will not be held in prisons past their release date - but they can be confined to a mental hospital until pronounced "cured." (Most likely never.)

    FT.com / US / Politics & Foreign policy - US top court upholds federal sex offender law

    Yanno, I'm ok with that.
  6. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Indeed this is a very slippery slope however detention without reason is not a new law, Bush put indefinite detention in place after 911 and Our Leader chose to continue it almost directly after he took office. The fact it's now specific to sexual offenders is probably designed to garner popular support but it's only a tiny tip of what's a very nasty slope overall. Bizarre as it sounds and difficult as this may be to say, I hope this goes away. Dangerous precedent.
  7. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    99
    Ratings:
    +154 / 2 / -1

    Anybody who claims they believe in "small government"

    If you're a fiscal conservative but don't care about the government locking people up indefinitely without due process, you don't really want small government.
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,169
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +353 / 1 / -9

    Probably makes a lot of Rape Victims smile.
  9. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,843
    Likes Received:
    99
    Ratings:
    +154 / 2 / -1

    Do you know anything about involuntary confinement to psychiatric facilities?

    If this is in line with those laws (and those laws are reasonable -- which I'll assume they are for this discussion), I have no problem with the decision -- aside from the fact that the law would seem unnecessary.

    If that's the case, however, I'm not sure how it should have anything to do with the prisoners' incarceration (and, in fact, shouldn't they be in a psychiatric facility in the first place, if this is the case?).
  10. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,029
    Likes Received:
    109
    Ratings:
    +190 / 7 / -23

    Elena Kagan successfully argued this case..

    Those darlings of the right Thomas and Scalia dissented.. interesting eh?

    BTW this only applies to Federal Prisoners already in custody, and has no application for individual states...

    United States v. Comstock - ScotusWiki
  11. Bonni

    Bonni Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    oh, its realy bad news =(
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    I disagree with this ruling if you want to hold these offenders for life change the law. I don't like the government 'deciding' who might be dangerous. I don't think these guys can be rehabbed but this is the wrong way to do it. What will prevent this ruling from being applied to other crimes, possession of pot for example? Think the law of unintended consequences.

    Cheers to Thomas and Scalia for their dissent on this case.
  13. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,429
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +360 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they did, 13 - they changed the law.

    Who would you like to do the deciding, 13?

    Yourself? I'm pretty sure you'd be falling all over yourself in your haste to either execute them without further hearing - and barring that possibility, you'd commit them for life in a heartbeat - damn the liberal laws and the stupid judges who didn't give them life in the first place.

    So now the government's gone ahead and agreed with you - and you're pizzy about it.

    Maybe this thread will refresh your mind and remind everyone else that you have two sides to your mouth and you talk out of them both.

    http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...d-rapist-killed-bridgewater-state-prison.html
    Last edited: May 17, 2010
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13



    The jury.


    I would prefer that the option of life imprisionment be available.


    If a sentence is issued and the guilty pay their debt to society as ruled by the judge the state should let the person go.


    This undermines the rule of law.
  15. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,429
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +360 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    Aren't you in favor of state laws, tho?
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13



    I would apply the same standard for state or federal laws.THis sounds like double jeporady to me, how can we allow the state to decide if someone will be released after their sentence has been served?


    What happened to trial by a jury of your peer?

    You pay your debt to society and move on. If you think someone should be held give them a life sentnece of the death penalty.
  17. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,429
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +360 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    Every state has the right to hold a prisoner in a state prison past their release date if they are deemed "a danger to themelves or society." It falls under the involuntary committment laws for mentally ill people. If two doctors examine a prisoner and deem that he is unable to prevent himself from hurting either himself or someone else he is deemed mentally ill and can be detained until such time as he is pronounced "cured," or is able to control his impulses.

    They are no longer "prisoners" once their release date has passed, they must be confined to a mental hospital and they are to be medically treated and care for as if they were you or I with a mental illness. There are hearing held periodically and each case is reviewed and each time a new decision is reached.

    It's a slippery slope, of course, I agree - but it strikes me humerous that so many people who are suddenly against this particular Supreme Court decision are the same ones who usually scream for the government to lock them up and throw away the key - which is, in effect, what they've done.

    And now you're ticked off about it.
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    So if I am put in jail for a dwi and someone 'determines' that I will drink and drive if I am released thay can theoretically be held for the rest of my life?

    Do you consider that a good idea?
  19. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,429
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +360 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    The law is quite specific to certain crimes of a sexual nature and does not pertain to any other crimes. Certain crimes are considered to be of a deviant sexual nature - such crimes are most often the manifestation of a mental illness. For instance, pedophilia is considered a mental illness - it is something that the offender cannot control without a good deal of counseling and chemical control and it is an offense he will., most likely, commit again - especially if his original crime contained a good deal of violence.

    Driving while drunk is not, necessarily, a medical illness. (Although alcoholism itself is thought to be.) So, no, I don't think it would be a good idea to keep the drunk driver in jail for the rest of his life - unless, of course, it was his 15th offense and he'd killed people without ever showing remorse of it.

    Do you think the repeat drunk driver with fatalities to his "credit," without remorse, and with several medical professionals attesting to the fact that the instant he gets out of jail the first thing he's going to do is get drunk, get in the car and run over a small child on a tricycle should be let out of jail?

    The thing is - there's no danger of that happening. The law does not touch on any other crime other than violent sexual crime. No one's getting permission to keep anyone in jail for longer than their sentence unless they've committed a particularily heinous violent sexual crime and have shown themselves to be untreatable while incarcerated.

    I still don't understand why you wanted to give the prisoner who killed another sexual offending prisoner while in prison a medal and shake his hand but now you're all up in arms about the government doing what you wanted that particular individual to do in the first place.

    It's ok for you to agree with an individual who took the law into his own hands but it's not ok for the government to agree with you?
  20. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,029
    Likes Received:
    109
    Ratings:
    +190 / 7 / -23

    You can be detained after being arrested if you are considered a danger to yourself or others, no matter what the crime.. if you get arrested for shoplifting and when they bring you in you say you are going to kill yourself and a MH professional evaluates you then you can be detained in a psychiatric facility as you are deemed a danger to yourself.

    If you get arrested for a dui and after being booked tell the PO that you are going to kill him, rape his wife and slaughter his children when you get out.. and are deemed to be in some type of homicidal rage by a MH professional and there is intent, you can be detained..

    This does not happen all that often, according to my friends who evaluate people like this, but technically it can..

    People go to jail and pick up new charges and get more time, the justice system is a merry go round and is intended to protect the public...

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>