The Supreme Court now says that if you are sentenced to a certain amount of time, and if you are designated a "sexually dangerous offender" then you may be held without bail, or without punishment after your sentence is over if the court wants.
Setting aside the dangerous sexual offender aspect, how in the world do we justify keeping someone locked up? Seems to me the courts should just do what our state court does, and give them 100 years without parole.
Might be easier for you if you are a terrorist, and trying to kill Americans. At least then you would be presumed to be eligible to be released.
3 comments:
This is wrong on more levels than I care to count ... but then I'm not a lawyer. As I read this ruling, the 7 Justices hold that indefinite detainment for the psychiatric dangerously infirm is legal, and so this must be as well. Isn't that already admitting that sexual predation is a psychiatric infirmity, and if so, standard incarceration is not the due process of justice?
Further, how far are we going to take the broadening of the definitions of psychology into the legal realm? Who's next? Tea Baggers, Birthers? Homosexuals? Dirty F***ing Hippies?
I'd like to thank you, Steve, for not making this a partisan issue. I've read too many on both sides doing that today, and if there's one thing we should agree on, it's that indefinite incarceration is wrong except for those who have proven themselves an existential danger to the species.
Back the the sex offender issue, the therapeutic establishment that handles juvenile offenders can be pretty free with attaching the Level # label to recalcitrant young perps.
Ie, don't p*** them off.
Sex as a capital crime. Reminds me of Winston and Julia.
Post a Comment