OpEdNews Op Eds

Sexually Dangerous Can Be Imprisoned Indefinitely: Can Politicians Be "Sexually Dangerous"?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Supported 2   Must Read 1   Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 5/18/10

Become a Fan
  (66 fans)
- Advertisement -

Flickr Photo by bobster855

A Supreme Court decision on Monday stated that federal official could hold people who are considered "sexually dangerous" indefinitely even if their prison terms have been served completely.

The idea of keeping sexually dangerous people off the streets is not a bad one until you think of the enforcement mechanisms. Who gets to decide who is sexually dangerous and who is it? Aren't these the same people who go to work with politicians who themselves have committed sex crimes?

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion:

"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."

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented (not because he found indefinite detention to be a violation of one's civil liberties but because he found it to be a violation of state's rights):

"The historical record thus supports the Federal Government's authority to detain a mentally ill person against whom it has the authority to enforce a criminal law. But it provides no justification whatsoever for reading the Necessary and Proper Clause to grant Congress the power to authorize the detention of persons without a basis for federal criminal jurisdiction."

- Advertisement -

What exactly does it mean to be "sexually dangerous"? Is this strictly a designation based on a perceived mental illness by psychiatrists?

Text of the Court opinion, (posted here by Georgetown University professor and lawyer Jonathan Turley) states, "Congress could have reasonably concluded that federal inmates who suffer from a mental illness that causes them to "have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct...would have especially high danger to the public if released." Furthermore, it states, "Congress could also have reasobnably concluded that a reasonable number of such individuals would likely not be detained by the States if released from federal custody."

The argument appears to be that the federal government must intervene and do what state governments are not properly doing. Yet, it's hard to believe that there is any place in the United States where government is not tracking sexually violent predators -- people who would most likely be designated as "sexually dangerous."

Under Megan's Law, all 50 states are supposed to have laws that require sex offenders to register with police and report where they are living after leaving prison or when being convicted of any crime. The public also must be able to access this information.

However, a distinction should be made: This decision probably has more bearing on sexually violent predators and little bearing on sex offenders. While research polls and reporters may rarely differentiate the two and while the public may not either, there is a definitive legal differentiation that is made by the Sexual Violent Predator Act of 1995.

- Advertisement -

"Sexually violent predators" are strictly people deemed to have a mental disorder that would lead them to "re-offend." It "requires anyone convicted of two sexually violent offenses to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if a mental disorder makes it likely they will re-offend. If they are classified a [sexually violent predator], the district attorney can file a petition to commit. If a court or jury finds evidence is strong, the person may be committed to a secure state hospital for an indeterminate amount of time.

The Supreme Court decision reinforces public attitudes toward sex offenders (which are probably similar if not more lenient than attitudes toward sexual predators). A Gallup poll in 2005 found that at least two-thirds of Americans support the use of the registry to track sex offenders and have little sympathy for arguments against the registry that would suggest the lists would lead to harassment of people.

Presumably, the same group that expressed little concern about the registry is the same group that is significantly afraid of child molesters in their community. The poll found two-thirds think a convicted child molester probably lives in their neighborhood. And, even more important is the fact that this Gallup poll found that 65% think sex offenders (or child molesters) cannot be rehabilitated.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

Kevin Gosztola is a writer and curator of Firedoglake's blog The Dissenter, a blog covering civil liberties in the age of technology. He is an editor for OpEdNews.com and a former intern and videographer for The Nation Magazine.And, he's the (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

We Do Not Consent to Warrantless "Porno-Scanning" in Airports

Do They Put Lipstick on Pigs at the Funny Farm?

How Private Prison Corporations Hope Arizona's SB1070 Will Lead to Internment Camps for Illegals

Why the Battle Against TSA Groping and Body Scanners is Justified

Give Obama a Chance to Do What?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Politicians should not have so much influence that... by Steven G. Erickson on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 1:03:16 PM
Politicians should not have so much influence that... by Steven G. Erickson on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 1:07:44 PM
I clicked the link, and read what you had to say t... by Ned Lud on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 7:01:16 AM
People forget their history and that will destroy ... by Steven Leser on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 8:51:26 PM
Are they human beings?... by GLloyd Rowsey on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 6:07:36 AM
And we all know, who GOD is, right? RIGHT. ... by Ned Lud on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 6:45:19 AM