Americans can now be locked away on the basis of fear

@engineer,

What if they had a highly contagious and deadly disease? Would you then let them loose on society knowing the harm that might ensue?

I think that was one argument forwarded by Ms. Kagan.

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Quote:

What if they had a highly contagious and deadly disease? Would you then let them loose on society knowing the harm that might ensue?

if they had a highly contagious and deadly disease this could be proven 100%. Also, engaging is criminal sex is not contagious, it is almost never deadly, and it is a disease only if you subscribe to the extreme fringes of the school of liberalism. Being attracted to children and being prone to sexual violence is a normal part of human nature, and while I can support trying to resist those urges such behaviour is certainly not caused by a disease....unless you want to call the existence of the human race a disease, which some have done.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

I think that is a terrible analogy because they don't have a highly contagious and deadly disease. That's a poor attempt to rationalize someone's civil rights away. I think a better analogy would be what if the public looked at someone they feared and declared that they had a terrible disease. Would the declaration of the majority be sufficient to declare that there is in fact a disease and incarceration is the only solution?

1 Reply

@engineer,

I see your point. I think Ms. Kagan was just pointing out that there are cases to be made where there is good reason to incarcerate someone on an 'indefinite' basis.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Are you saying that the statute judges sex offenders as a group? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
because what is being done is comparing this guy to others..the only thing they have to go by is what other guys like him tend to do...the behaviour of his peer group. The state can say "there is a 89% likelihood that he will re offend" but there are some gangbangers in lock-up who we can say the same thing about...shall they get indefinite prison terms too?

All medical and psychiatric diagnoses are based, in part, on the case histories of similar patients -- doctors, after all, aren't obliged to reinvent the wheel every time they see a new patient. The same, of course, can be said of our evaluation of a criminal's likelihood of committing more crimes, yet you don't seem to have any problems with locking up other criminals on the suspicion that they might commit future crimes (so long as they're not sex offenders, for whom you will always have a soft spot in your heart).

It is disingenuous (or else blindly pigheaded) to argue that, because the state relies on similar cases in evaluating the possibility of an individual's recidivism, that it is thereby judging that person based on the behavior of his peer group. Remember, an offender is only in a peer group of other offenders because of the offenses that he committed. Responsibility is always placed on the shoulders of the individual, not on the group.

hawkeye10 wrote:

This is not a psychiatric order where if it goes against them the person is going to get treated for insanity and will probably be out of the hospital in months or years, we are talking about locking people up in prisons because they might break a law with every intention of keeping them there for the rest of their lives.

These people are not locked up in penitentiaries. They are sent to mental health facilities. It is not legally permissible to commit someone civilly to a prison, since persons who are civilly committed are not serving jail terms.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Not. The . Same. Thing.

You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Being attracted to children and being prone to sexual violence is a normal part of human nature

umm, sure i like kids, but i don't want to **** them, i don't think that would be particularly normal (i think under certain circumstances some of the teen age sex issues are overblown (teen to teen sexting for instance)

i've also never felt the need or desire to punch a woman in the face during sex, or for that matter to force sex on a woman, call me weird

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

These people are not locked up in penitentiaries. They are sent to mental health facilities. It is not legally permissible to commit someone civilly to a prison, since persons who are civilly committed are not serving jail terms.

not at all sure i understand this. Have these offenders been convicted of a felon and served their time and then not released? or or these offenders transferred to a mental health hearing where they are deemed by psychiatric professionals to be unsafe to themselves or others and "held/treated" in a forensic facility with court reviews?

1 Reply

canada does it like this

On October 17, 2006, the Canadian government introduced legislation that would make it easier for Crown prosecutors to obtain dangerous offender designations. The proposed amendments would provide, among other things, that an offender found guilty of a third conviction of a designated violent or sexual offence must prove that he or she does not qualify as a dangerous offender. (Under current legislation, the Crown must prove that the individual qualifies as a dangerous offender; the proposed amendment would reverse the onus for individuals convicted of three violent offences" they would have to prove that despite the three convictions, they do not qualify as dangerous offenders.)

1 Reply

@djjd62,

guilty until proven innocent

3 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Being attracted to children and being prone to sexual violence is a normal part of human nature

umm, sure i like kids, but i don't want to **** them, i don't think that would be particularly normal
(i think under certain circumstances some of the teen age sex issues are overblown (teen to teen sexting for instance)

That 's a good way to put it.
When I was a kid, kids were just other people by whom I was surrounded.
I did not take particular notice of them, generally, except for a few friends.
Thru middle age, again, I did not take particular notice of them, generally,
but in the 3rd phase of life, I feel a benevolence toward them.
I feel that I 'd like them to be happy.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Or sane.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Or sane.

Yes; is it worse to be confined among a bunch of criminals
or
worse to be confined among a bunch of crazy men ?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

well certainly 3 times guilty

i can live with a 3 time offender having to prove his need for freedom

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

guilty until proven innocent

I am more impressed that America is now using established mental health system procedures to keep people in prison. Many but not all those being held after their sentences are over are moved to different prisons, ones which are called mental health centers, but in every way function as prisons. The "evaluation" used to get them there is a fine example of the long history of states using kangaroo courts to abuse their citizens.

Anything to get the job done, honesty not required.

A pretty good piece on this court case and the system here
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/12/scotus.sex.offender.law/index.html

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

well certainly 3 times guilty

i can live with a 3 time offender having to prove his need for freedom

I think it is fair n just to enact criminal laws
that have very long prison sentences for violent felonies.
The critical consideration is that the public have notice,
b4 committing the designated crime, of what the penalty is.
I understand that in Texas, such violent felonies as robbery
can be attended by several centuries of sentenced prison time.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

agreed, i have no use for concurrent sentencing (some thing that happens in canada), i say, if you kill 4 people you get 4 terms, if that's life with a chance of parole in 25 years, you have to serve 100 years before being eligible for parole

0 Replies

@djjd62,

Quote:

umm, sure i like kids, but i don't want to **** them,

You might want to get educated on what behaviours can land you in a sex offender charge...actual contact with a child is not required. We are talking about criminalizing the desire to be sexual with children, something that so far as we know has always been a part of human sexuality.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The effectiveness of treatment facilities for sex offenders in other states is still up for debate. Maddox said some states pay up to five times more to treat sex offenders in residential facilities than they do to house prison inmates.

In Missouri, a 2005 newspaper investigation found that the state’s sex offender treatment program had existed for more than six years, housed more than 100 people considered “sexually violent predators,” and had not one person graduate back into society. Missouri officials have since been quoted as saying that the program has had a better recent success rate.

According to a 2007 New York Times report, Florida has more than 500 sex offenders in its treatment facility. A former worker there described it as “a free-for-all prison” while a local mental health counselor described it as “a cesspool of despair and depression and drug abuse…”

U.S. Justice Department statistics show that more than 4,000 sex offenders are civilly confined after their sentences have ended nationwide at a cost of about $700 million a year to taxpayers.

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/getarticle.aspx?ID=36335

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The fact that something is traditional does not keep it from being immoral. That's a logical fallacy ("appeal to tradition").

Up until not very long ago, it was part of the human condition to use children for cheap labor as well.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Currently, 84 such prisoners are indefinitely confined for treatment at a federal prison in North Carolina. Five of them are challenging the law under which they have been detained with no end in sight.

Typical is the case of Graydon Comstock, who was sentenced to three years in prison for possession of child pornography. Six days short of completing his term, he was designated as "sexually dangerous," and the federal government moved to have him civilly committed for treatment. He has been kept in the North Carolina facility for two additional years, with little prospect of release

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122452485

so much for the quaint idea that one must **** a kid to be awarded the removal of their freedom for the rest of their lives by the extra constitutional means SCOTUS is allowing the state to use.

And it will only get worse, it always does, for once the state is allowed to abuse its citizens it always fends new reasons for doing so...

1 Reply

Americans can now be locked away on the basis of fear

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know