Supreme Court rules that sex offenders can be held indefinitely

Great Debates
1

I’m shocked at this recent U.S. Supreme Court decision:

Sex offenders can be kept in prison, justices rule

Inmates considered “sexually dangerous” can now be held indefinitely even after their prison terms are complete.

This decision legitimizes the “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act,” which authorized the civil commitment of federal inmates deemed to be “sexually dangerous,” even prisoners who have never been previously charged with or convicted of a sex crime.

I have two problems with this decision:

(1) The law seems to clearly be an ex post facto law, which I thought was prohibited under the Constitution.

(2) It seems to me that this law, enacted under the guise of protecting children, is a major step in the direction of indefinite incarceration for other crimes. Should we incarcerate drunk drivers indefinitely under the guise of protecting children? What about people who text and drive? :rolleyes:

2

I have to assume I am missing some line of argument to justify the indefinite incarceration, because like you I was fairly shocked. Even moreso when I heard the SCOTUS decision was 7-2, and even moreso when I heard that the two dissenting justices (who I apparently agree with) are Thomas and Scalia.

It makes me think that I must not understand the case.

3

I saw a brief blurb on this earlier this morning that included the phrase “under certain circumstances”. Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to read the full story then, and I can’t seem to find that link now. I do hope that there are very specific conditions for this, because on the surface this strikes me as very, very wrong.

4

That’s outrageous.

Am I the only who doesn’t see any point at all in the restrictions of how close a sex offender can live to a school? If they want to molest someone, why wouldn’t they just walk to the school or get in their damned car and go there? Why does matter where they live?

5

I did a doubletake on this too. I really do not understand how this squares with the Constitution. The state is basically imprisoning people for what they might do in future. I’m astonished that Scalia and Thomas were the only two Justices who saw a problem with this law.

6

To follow this line of thinking, could not anyone deemed “dangerous to society” be held indefinitely?

7

[cough] Guantanamo Bay [/cough]

8

I’ll need to read the opinion (and dissent) later, but the article in the OP made it sound as if this case may have been argued in such a way that the scope of Congress’ power to enact criminal laws was at issue - not necessarily whether there’s a due process or cruel and unusual punishment issue. If so, that might explain Scalia and Thomas dissenting - in particular, it would explain Scalia joining only in part of Thomas’ dissent. Both men believe in a relatively narrow scope of action for Congress, and Thomas in particular believes that the Court has ascribed far too much power to Congress for the past hundred years or so.

Or it might not be that at all - like I said, I’ve gotta read the case.

9

Couldn’t be simpler.

Congress passes a law that says that sexually dangerous, mentally ill offenders may be civilly committed after their sentences run.

Some folks so committed complained that Congress exceeded their powers in passing this law.

The justices found that the “Necessary and Proper” clause gives the government broad power to enact laws that are “convenient, or useful” or “conducive” to the enumerated power’s “beneficial exercise,” and that Congress can “legislate on that vast mass of incidental powers which must be involved in the constitution.”

Two justices felt, in contrast, that in order to determine what Congress’ powers are, you should simply read the Constitution.

Yes, people sneer at Scalia when he trots out that simple-minded idea, don’t they? As long as the courts are doing stuff you like, then, sure, let’s give them a broad mandate to craft incidental powers.

But when they take a turn you don’t like, than it’s, “Oh, how could they do this?!?”

Well, me buckos, gotta take the chaff with the wheat. You handed this power to the courts, and now you cannot complain when they use it. (But you still will, of course).

For the record: as a matter of policy, I agree with the law. Locking away sexually dangerous predators makes perfect sense. They will be otherwise an on-going danger to society.

But Congress should not have the power to do so, because the Constitution shouldn’t be read to grant them this power in the absence of something more specific in the text. So I agree with Scalia and Thomas’ dissent.

10

Yeah, I tried reading the SCOTUS decision this morning and, not being a lawyer, made it through about 2 pages before giving up in frustration.

The amount of pain and rage involved in cases where a person is raped and murdered by a criminal who has been previously jailed for similar crimes, expressed no remorse, undertaken no classes, etc., is unimaginable to me. I think it’s commendable that the government is somewhat trampling on offenders’ rights for once and taking the side of victims and potential victims.

11

Just based on the article in the OP, that’s how it sounded to me.

I find I’m not surprised about that. And I’ll say this for the eleventy-billionth time: if people think the current sexual offense laws are not strong enough, they should make them stronger instead of creating restricted living zones, online lists, and giving courts the authority to lock up sex offenders indefinitely.

12

John Hinckley was rather famously found not guilty at trial, yet he has not been a free man for a long long time. What is more, this is not terribly controversial.

Now, I think there are some public policy questions that have to be answered in the expansion of civil and criminal commitment. But it isn’t as if this was created from whole cloth here.

13

Civil commitments aren’t the same as prison anyway, aren’t they?

I have no problem with the law or this decision. Lock the fuckers up and throw away the key.

No surprise the one known sex offender on the Court ruled in favor of the kiddie rapers.

14

As always, one must ask in response to your posts, “What are you leaving out, and why?” One might read the Constitution and find, for instance, a restriction on cruel and unusual punishments, and a requirement for due process of law. But those *conflict *in this case with the necessary and proper clause! What to do, what to do … Oh, I know, just ignore the parts you find inconvenient to your desired result. “Couldn’t be simpler”, as you put it.

People sneer at Scalia, and his habitual defenders, when they pretend the problem really is that simple, and when they follow the process of “logic” I’ve just described.

In what way are they functionally different?

By reason of insanity, after getting his due process.

15

Why only sex offenders? Why don’t we lock away ordinary violent criminals indefinitely?

16

Don’t have to be functionally different to not be the same…

17

Well I can turn in my card now and quit. It’s finally happened- I’m in 100% agreement with a post by Bricker. :smiley:

I could not agree more, in fact.

Cartooniverse

18

Who else IYHO should be locked away forever as an “on-going danger to society”?

19

Come on, Diogenes the Cynic. I don’t agree with Thomas’ judicial philosophy, but I see no reason to doubt that it’s sincerely held. He’s pretty consistently produced dissents decrying the over-expansion of Congress’ powers since long before this case, and I expect him to do so until he leaves the Court.

20

Right, and commitment has a due process component as well, in the form of the commitment hearing.

You knew that, right?