Be a Supporter!
Yert
Yert
  • Member since: Nov. 10, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Art Lover
US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 08:10 AM Reply

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a law which allows "sexually dangerous" prisoners to be jailed forever without trial does not violate the Constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/pol itics/18offenders.html

Discuss

Sekhem
Sekhem
  • Member since: Feb. 20, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 31
Musician
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 08:14 AM Reply

prisoners forfeit their rights as soon as they violate the social contract by committing a crime

who cares


letterboxd|||| last.fm |||| recommend me hip-hop - G O D // B L E S S // A F R I C A

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:07 AM Reply

At 5/18/10 08:14 AM, Sekhem wrote: prisoners forfeit their rights as soon as they violate the social contract by committing a crime

who cares

I have to agree here, but only for certain crimes. We need a class above felonies that these crimes would be considered, because I don't think someone going joyriding should lose the same rights as a rapist


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
reverend
reverend
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 49
Movie Buff
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:51 AM Reply

"The federal law at issue in the case allows the government to continue to detain prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct, suffered from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves."

As long as the law stays contained in this specific way then I see no problem with it. If a prisoner has no way to control themselves and in all likelihood will recommit the same sexual crime again then what was the point of releasing them?

Not to mention, this ruling is dealing with Civil Commitment Laws to extend a prisoner's time. It's describing putting prisoners under mental hospital/ward care involuntary past their prison sentence; not about locking them in the penitentiary and tossing out the key.


Rev 22:20 || Wi/Ht? # 46 || Why was my review deleted? || Without her, we are lifeless satellites drifting.

BBS Signature
jew193
jew193
  • Member since: Feb. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 39
Gamer
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:55 AM Reply

At 5/18/10 08:14 AM, Sekhem wrote: prisoners forfeit their rights as soon as they violate the social contract by committing a crime

who cares

But without a trial no evidence needs to be provided, so someone could be innocent of all charges, and be jailed without having been proven guilty or not guilty by a jury of his/her peers.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 09:27 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 10:55 AM, jew193 wrote: But without a trial no evidence needs to be provided, so someone could be innocent of all charges, and be jailed without having been proven guilty or not guilty by a jury of his/her peers.

The thing is that they already had to of been convicted before.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
zooos
zooos
  • Member since: Mar. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 09:29 PM Reply

Good, if your hurting or molesting kids, out raping or sexually battering women, YOU really deserve to be tortured to death in the cruelest of ways. They should consider this luck.


BBS Signature
OddlyPoetic
OddlyPoetic
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 09:36 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 08:14 AM, Sekhem wrote: prisoners forfeit their rights as soon as they violate the social contract by committing a crime

That is very, very not true.


Render Unto Caesar

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 09:38 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 09:36 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: That is very, very not true.

Yes it is. How is raping someone or killing someone not violating the victims rights? People who willingly take other peoples rights away for the sake of pleasure or "beef" deserve more rights then the victim?


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Jackdabomb
Jackdabomb
  • Member since: Jul. 26, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Movie Buff
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 09:43 PM Reply

I would be fine with this but I do have one small problem. What defines someone as sexually dangerous? What behaviors indicate that a man is to dangerous for society? You really can't just look at someone and say that they're a rapist. All I'm saying is that they should have some sort of trial. I don't think that a sexually dangerous person can really win over a jury even if they had a good attorney. Like if its a child offender I don't think anyone's going to take his side. I don't know it just sounds a little unconstitutional.


BBS Signature
OddlyPoetic
OddlyPoetic
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:20 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 09:38 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 5/18/10 09:36 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: That is very, very not true.
Yes it is. How is raping someone or killing someone not violating the victims rights? People who willingly take other peoples rights away for the sake of pleasure or "beef" deserve more rights then the victim?

That's not what im talking about. Im saying that the Prisoner does not lose all rights when arrested. They haven't lost their to due process. That's simple legal knowledge. Chill Rasta.


Render Unto Caesar

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:21 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 10:20 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: That's not what im talking about. Im saying that the Prisoner does not lose all rights when arrested. They haven't lost their to due process. That's simple legal knowledge. Chill Rasta.

I am not saying anything about all their rights, I am saying that if they violate others rights, they shouldn't expect to have theirs, and the person already went through due process in their original trial that convicted them.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
OddlyPoetic
OddlyPoetic
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:24 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 10:21 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
I am not saying anything about all their rights, I am saying that if they violate others rights, they shouldn't expect to have theirs, and the person already went through due process in their original trial that convicted them.

Not to Property or Freedom, no. But to prolong sentence without trial? That isn't right.


Render Unto Caesar

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:27 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 10:24 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Not to Property or Freedom, no. But to prolong sentence without trial? That isn't right.

How so? This is for people that are a danger to society, and have already been convicted of a crime through the court system


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
OddlyPoetic
OddlyPoetic
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:31 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 10:27 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 5/18/10 10:24 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Not to Property or Freedom, no. But to prolong sentence without trial? That isn't right.
How so? This is for people that are a danger to society, and have already been convicted of a crime through the court system

And the entire point of that system is to reform. I don't trust the system to imprison people without review. Think of it; why no review? If the people in question truly deserve to be in prison, then a proper review would surely prove it. Beside, you start with this and soon you'll see the same being applied to every other offense. You can't simply punish these people; you need to reform them.


Render Unto Caesar

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:34 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 10:31 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: And the entire point of that system is to reform.

The point of the justice system isn't to reform, it is to keep the streets safe.

I don't trust the system to imprison people without review. Think of it; why no review? If the people in question truly deserve to be in prison, then a proper review would surely prove it.

Which would cost a whole lot of money when they can just take someone who obviously deserves it back

Beside, you start with this and soon you'll see the same being applied to every other offense.

Slippery slope argument? Really? What's next, gay marriage will lead me to marrying a penguin?

You can't simply punish these people; you need to reform them.

You really think people who have raped on several occasions non-violently can be reformed?


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
OddlyPoetic
OddlyPoetic
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:47 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 10:34 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 5/18/10 10:31 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: And the entire point of that system is to reform.
The point of the justice system isn't to reform, it is to keep the streets safe.

Which can be done through reform. You need to save people; get them back into society, that way you have more productive members of society and less people costing the prison system money. It isn't going to keep the streets safe to keep releasing unreformed people who with claims about resorting to their former crimes. However, it's also unethical and costly to keep many people imprisoned with indefinite amounts of time. So that's why you need to release reformed people; people who see the moral, pragmatic problems of their past actions. We need therapists as well as jailers, especially for mentally deranged offenders like rapists.

I don't trust the system to imprison people without review. Think of it; why no review? If the people in question truly deserve to be in prison, then a proper review would surely prove it.
Which would cost a whole lot of money when they can just take someone who obviously deserves it back

It would cost even more to keep them imprisoned. Without reviews, how are you going to determine who does and does not deserve it? What if the original conviction was wrong? We're talking about people's lives; money is not as important. Yes it will cost money, but budget isn't the issue here. Though Money is a factor :D

Beside, you start with this and soon you'll see the same being applied to every other offense.
Slippery slope argument? Really? What's next, gay marriage will lead me to marrying a penguin?

No, that's just application of the principle. You allow this for "Sexually Dangerous" offenders, and then you allow for Violent ones, then financial ones, then, eventually, you have the policy in place for all offenders, being labeled "Socially Dangerous" This is called the "Foot In the Door Effect" once people agree to one request, they are more likely to agree to another, larger one.

You can't simply punish these people; you need to reform them.
You really think people who have raped on several occasions non-violently can be reformed?

Not all of these people have done it several times. This would law would apply to all rapists, repeat offenders or not. I see no evidence to believe that they can or cannot be reformed. But, it's more humane to assume it's possible, and then try. Neither of us are qualified to make that claim.


Render Unto Caesar

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to US Supreme Court May. 18th, 2010 @ 10:54 PM Reply

At 5/18/10 10:47 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Which can be done through reform. You need to save people; get them back into society, that way you have more productive members of society and less people costing the prison system money. It isn't going to keep the streets safe to keep releasing unreformed people who with claims about resorting to their former crimes. However, it's also unethical and costly to keep many people imprisoned with indefinite amounts of time. So that's why you need to release reformed people; people who see the moral, pragmatic problems of their past actions. We need therapists as well as jailers, especially for mentally deranged offenders like rapists.

You honestly think that it is possible to accurately assess whether nor not someone is truly reformed? I know if I was in that situation, I would lie my ass off to get out of jail. This isn't for "many people" this is a law aimed at those with multiple charges who clearly have no business being in society, personally, I would prefer if they were just executed, but that is not the issue at hand.

It would cost even more to keep them imprisoned. Without reviews, how are you going to determine who does and does not deserve it? What if the original conviction was wrong? We're talking about people's lives; money is not as important. Yes it will cost money, but budget isn't the issue here. Though Money is a factor :D

You do realize for someone to be convicted they need evidence now right? Obviously someone who had one rape charge isn't going to be brought back, but someone who raped say, 4 or so women would.

No, that's just application of the principle. You allow this for "Sexually Dangerous" offenders, and then you allow for Violent ones, then financial ones, then, eventually, you have the policy in place for all offenders, being labeled "Socially Dangerous" This is called the "Foot In the Door Effect" once people agree to one request, they are more likely to agree to another, larger one.

You really think they will keep someone who is prone to fights in jail indefinitely because people with multiple counts of rape are being brought back? Also, financial crimes as a stand alone is not related to the other ones. The so called "Foot in the Door Effect" was also used as an argument against interracial marriage. Just because traditionally it is what we are used to doesn't make it right.

Not all of these people have done it several times. This would law would apply to all rapists, repeat offenders or not. I see no evidence to believe that they can or cannot be reformed. But, it's more humane to assume it's possible, and then try. Neither of us are qualified to make that claim.

This law would only be used on those who obviously deserve it. Same reason you don't see the death penalty against everyone with a murder charge, you are assuming that it will be used frequently and not just occasionally. How is allowing someone who is clearly prone to sexually acts of violence against people on the streets more humane then keeping them in jail?


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to US Supreme Court May. 19th, 2010 @ 12:27 AM Reply

I am glad that they are finally making a good choice besides getting softer again. I despise criminals with ever bone in my body.


For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature
Sensationalism
Sensationalism
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 35
Melancholy
Response to US Supreme Court May. 19th, 2010 @ 12:51 AM Reply

Rapists have no rights. They get treated much better than they deserve.


The sig that I'm wearin? Awesomely made by Skaren!
Also, I like annoying Americans by calling English football "real football" and American football "rugby".-Lost-Chances

BBS Signature
Timmy
Timmy
  • Member since: Jan. 12, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 36
Art Lover
Response to US Supreme Court May. 19th, 2010 @ 01:15 AM Reply

I've always assumed that the legal requirement to keep convicted sex criminals on a "watch list" for the rest of their lives would be the next law to be challenged by a "cruel and unusual punishment" argument, but this new law might be the one instead.

It seems like the public is hesitant to try and defend the rights of a "sexually violent" criminal, even on Constitutional grounds, so the challenge will likely be brought on behalf of a prisoner that is being held under the "suffering from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves" prong of the law.


Sig by BlueHippo / User Icon by CosmicDeath.

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to US Supreme Court May. 19th, 2010 @ 09:43 AM Reply

At 5/19/10 02:54 AM, GuyInDisguise wrote: As much as I'd like to side with you on this one, that's just one huge assumption right there.

And saying that violent crimes, then financial crimes isn't? It is more reasonable to believe that this will be used sparingly, especially consider convicted repeat offenders almost never get back out, and if they repeated the crime, then they are going to do it again.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
DrRick
DrRick
  • Member since: May. 8, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to US Supreme Court May. 19th, 2010 @ 09:53 AM Reply

If you hurt anybody with a sexual tone in your attack, there is no way you should get out of prison.


Dreams with the concept of prosperity and happiness are premonitions, only then you can decide next.

BBS Signature