Supreme Court Considers Federal Civil Commitment
U.S. v. Comstock (08-1224).
Does Congress had the constitutional power to authorize the practice of civil commitment for federal prisoners?
What on earth would the arguments for/against civil commitment of violent sex offenders held past served prison time have anything to do with everyday Americans?
As stated by Eric Janus, author of "Failure to Protect" and dean at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota:
(...)Read more over at CNN Justice (1/12/2010):"The main danger of civil commitment of sex offenders is that it provides a precedent for doing an end run around those governmental protections, and we all may be comfortable right now because we say, 'Well, this is those people. It's not us. It's not our rights that are at stake,' " he said.
"I think we all ought to be cognizant of the fact that these laws set a precedent that greatly expands the power of government to take away our liberty, not for something we've done in the past, not after we've been convicted and punished, but out of fear that we might commit a crime in the future, and this is a very very powerful and dangerous idea," Janus said.
(...)
The justices will decide whether the program enacted under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 is constitutional by infringing on a traditional state function.
Meanwhile, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled to prohibit "..,the prosecution of sex offenders noncompliant with two restrictive laws may force area lawyers and law enforcement officials to review the sex offender registry more often." (Southeast Missourian, 1/14/2010).
The Supreme Court's 4-3 ruling applies only to sex offenders convicted prior to the enactment of a 2004 law forbidding a registered sex offender to live within 1,000 feet of a school or day care, and a 2008 law that imposes a ban on Halloween activities.
(...)
The Missouri state constitution doesn't permit retrospective law. (Note to self. Apparently the constitution isn't enough to deter lawmakers from passing the law in the first place........)
(...)
"Every time one of these comes up, we're all going to have to hit the books," Cape Girardeau County Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle said. "You don't want a criminal law to be so complicated that a prosecutor has to do that every time a charge is filed."
(...)
Julie Meiners, Cape Girardeau County assistant prosecuting attorney, shared the same sentiment, because a change in the law would mean new obligations would apply to past actions, making requirements the same for all sex offenders.
"This is going to cause a lot of confusion; our office is going to have to spend a lot of time looking things up, but obviously that's our job to know the law and all the updates," she said.
Welcome to our world, Julie.
***
UPDATE!
Missouri Sex Offenders Convicted AFTER 8-28-2008
The ACLU of Eastern Missouri would like to talk to you about the possibility of participating in a lawsuit to contest the Missouri Halloween restrictions.
Key: Must have been convicted AFTER 8-28-2008.
Contact Anthony Rothert at tony@aclu-em.org
***
Sex Offender News, Issues, Research and Recidivism (1/15/2010)
Labels: civil commitment, Halloween laws, U.S. Supreme Court
Explore Political Grind Network (a FeedBurner Network)
Links to this post:
this civil commitment thing is starting to get a LOT of attention. I meant to point out something to you the other day and ran out of time. Apparently there also exists a great deal of fraud in the system where corrupt psychologists, frame jobs and correction officers are recommending people who have done NEXT TO NOTHING.
What a shock, right? :(
The most reviled and 'dangerous' persons convicted of sexual abuse are not the Couey's of the world - it's the innocent and wrongly convicted.
Some innocent people caught in the coils of this system find themselves in a uniquely painful predicament: To obtain parole and a chance to rebuild their lives, they must allocute to the offense for which they were convicted.
In some cases, this confession is coupled with a polygraph examination, which puts genuinely innocent people in an inescapable double-bind: If they assert their innocence, they will be denied parole; if they falsely confess to the charges, they'll most likely fail the polygraph examination, with the same result.
The possibility for abuse is endless..."off to Siberia" used to be the phrase for USSR political prisoners. "off to civil committment" will be the US version.
People just don't believe this could ever happen to them....until it does.
I'd say the sections of the Patriot Act border on this very issue. Remember the guy who made some crack about 9/11 at his local gym and next thing he knew, FBI/CIA/FEDS were banging at this door?
He's now a believer.
That's the new wave legislature: pass a fucked up law in some distracted community (eyes on new orleans would probably be a good idea) and then the NEOCONS stand back and point over there at how much good it does. Then they railroad it through. And have people who will happily jetset lifestyle on the murder of their child and fly around the country bikers in tow to promote nazi laws to the berthas of the world. (field of dreams bertha)
Let's also remember that this year is an election year. The subject of sex offenders slides off the politician's tongue like butter off corn.
The damn politician's will tell the public ANYTHING that they want and the public will believe it because they fear everything.
I'd also remind you that Hitler used the same tactic of fear to get the German people to believe that what they were going to do was "in the protection of the people."
We are in the middle of a fight right now that pits us "the American Citizen" against the state and federal government "who are now a fascist movement."
Unless you fight against them, you will serve them!!