For example, John Hinckley can only be confined to the psych hospital as long as he is judged to be potentially dangerous. In fact, the chance of him trying to shoot someone else at this point, is vanishingly small--if the law were applied strictly he would be released by now.
The problem with sex offenders is, after they have served their sentence, they should be released, like any other offender.
Except, society has such revulsion at their offense and the prognosis for recidivism, that the question arises of prior restraint--keeping them confined to prevent a future crime. This is a very tricky area for those who value the rights even of noxious people.
I'm sure I can predict all the knee jerk responses, but the more mature will recognize the dilemma of incarcerating someone for a crime he has not (yet) committed.
I think the real dilemma here is that sentencing is too light for true sexual predators.
>>>>the more mature will recognize the dilemma of incarcerating someone for a crime he has not (yet) committed. <<<<
The only problem I see is that they didn’t receive life incarceration to begin with. Sex offenders are always repeat offenders.
No there isn't. What is this "Constitution" you speak of??? You some kind of liberal????
That document you refer to has been killed by both parties. String up the infidels! Yahoo!
“the chance of him trying to shoot someone else at this point is vanishingly small”
Yeah, because he can’t legally own a gun.