"Do midgets in green suits count..."
Posted on 05/17/2010 12:33:30 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.
The high court reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered “sexually dangerous.”
“The statute is a ’necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at toledoblade.com ...
Btw, THANK YOU for finding that!
Certainly Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens can argue that precident requires they uphold this law even though they voted against the precident when the court originally decided it. I guess Scalia and Thomas can make some states rights argument that they see the states but not the federal government having this power. And certainly neither side would say they changed their minds.
“Scalia and Thomas voted for state civil commitment while Breyer, Stevens and Ginsburg voted against it. So I guess 5 Justices changed sides on this vote? Weird.”
The issue in Kansas v Hendricks (1997) was whether government at the state level has the right to civilly commit sexual predators. 5 conservatives said yes and 4 liberals said no. Today’s 7-2 decision said the federal government has the same civil commitment right as the state governments when federal inmates are concerned. Too much hyperventilating about this one in my opinion. Here are the opinions:
Here are the opinions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1224.ZO.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1224.ZC.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1224.ZC1.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1224.ZD.html
Breyer, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas in that order.
I laughed when I read that. I guess because it's true.
I worry a bit about both decisions. I am shocked the left is not outraged. Among the mentally ill offenders you might continue in civil commitment are:
1. homosexuals as homosexuality until quite recently was viewed as a mental disease.
2. sexually active unmarried women who until recently were at times viewed as mentally ill.
3. fundamentalist female genital mutilators all of whom could be viewed mentally ill and certainly likely to offend if they have other female children.
4. and if the left has their way Christains who according to some on the left suffer from a mental illness.
Did you see anywhere in the article by the AP the words "mentally ill"? Neither did we. PeteCat found the decision and I asked the Mod to add "Mentally Ill" to the title. Those two words changes things considerably.
Right and if the 3 are just following precident and the two are distinguishing what a state can do from what the federal government can do, I guess none of them necessarily has changed their minds. That is they might each still vote the same way as they did in 1997 if the case were reheard today.
For Scalia and Thomas is State vs. Federal a defining point?
Yeah when I was typing, I wondered if Scalia and Thomas would vote to hold many federal criminal statutes as unconstitutional because criminal law is the province of the state government not the federal government. For example perhaps they believe federal hate crimes legislation is beyond the constitutional powers of Congress?
“I worry a bit about both decisions.”
So do I, but I think that Kansas v Hendricks causes me more disquiet.
If the sexual offenses were committed due to a mental illness than were the original criminal convictions mistaken? Perhaps the defendants should have been found not guilty due to insanity.
I’d feel better about a 5 years to life sentence for these offenses that wouldn’t require government to use civil commitment to control a problem of criminal behavior.
Boy what a good point and I am surprised I had never seen it raised before. If someone is mentally ill should their prior conviction be scrubbed? Can they really have had free will not to commit the crime if the are so ill they must be kept locked up after completing their sentence. [Or there might be cruel and unusual punishment issues if you prison is driving all or many such people insane.]
I agree if you want to have the ability to keep someone locked up for life, put it in the sentencing law. Sadly the bureacracy with such a law or civil commitment will likely randomly keep confined and let go the some wrong and some right people.
There was a man there who told everyone that his only mistake was not killing his victim and that wouldn't happen again. THAT is mental illness. And after his sentence was served, he was committed to a mental institution.
Stop thinking in terms of the helplessly mentally ill and think psychopaths etc. There are some.
“There was a man there who told everyone that his only mistake was not killing his victim and that wouldn’t happen again. THAT is mental illness.”
I disagree. That is EVIL.
There are many people who are mentally ill but do not harm others. They should never be associated in our minds with these criminal predators.
I bet Beck will be all over this angle tomorrow.
They will "nudge" this and further their ability to make their "Living Constitution" pliable to the enemies of the State (as they deem them) for unlimited detention...
I think that it’s a classic description of some of the mentally ill. He cannot relate to others pain and fear. That is a mental illness. It is also evil but it’s still a mental illness. And he didn’t start saying these things until he was in treatment while incarcerated. Otherwise no one would have known.
I am thinking in terms of giving the state too much power to keep someone arbitrarily. I am not trying to make people who served their time into anything more than convicts who served their time.
BTW, saying you would murder someone to avoid getting caught committing a crime is most certainly not mental illness. It is evil.
But to me, it is still a slippery slope. A dangerous precedent that is being set.
I assume those making the “dangerously mentally ill” verdict will be the Federal incarceration employees. Absolutely no possibilbilty of prejudice or political pandering there. /s
How about murderers and car thieves and drug dealers who might reoffend?
I see both sides. No one wants to let a possible reoffender loose to commit yet another crime.
But conversely, if a sentence has been served, is it right to leave it to individuals to determine further punishment? This seems to be unconstitutional.
"Do midgets in green suits count..."
It is indeed a slippery slope, why not politically dangerous
individuals? It worked for the Soviet Union, perhaps
internal exile also...
Since people that disagree are labeled as radicals...it’s kind of scary.
I guess internal exile to Montana would beat the heck out of Siberia...if you had a coat and blankets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.