[Mentally Ill] Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison, Supreme Court rules

The Toledo Blade ^ | May 17, 2010 | AP

[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.

[DJ MacWoW]

I don't know what to think. I do know that some that are released are picked up outside the prison door and taken to a mental institution as they are dangerous and have made threats. I agree with that. But if someone is being held in a prison past their sentence, I think that may be a Constitutional problem.

[ryan71]

Maybe they should have been executed to start with?

[nickcarraway]

It's a lot of power to give a government, to allow them to keep people after a sentence. On the radio, they made it sound like the standard is, "the person may commit another crime.

[csmusaret]

Can’t wait till they apply this to “Rightwing Domestic Terrorists and Anarchists”.

[DJ MacWoW]

Where is that in the Constitution?

[DaiHuy]

“I agree with that. But if someone is being held in a prison past their sentence, I think that may be a Constitutional problem.”

Apparently only Justices Scalia and Thomas agree wit you. (well and me of course)

[a fool in paradise]

Correct, after sentencing it’s too late to get a “do over”. Either prosecute and convict or put them on par with all other offenders.

This country won’t even hold enemy combatants at gitmo and we’ve SEEN them going back to battle as jihadists.

[Persevero]

“Maybe they should have been executed to start with?”

Indeed. Basically not rehabilitatable. Is that a word?

As usual, I make my statement, I am talking about forcible rapists and child molesters, NOT people who urinate in public or are statutory rapists.

[DJ MacWoW]

Yes it is. And it can so easily be used for “other”purposes.

[hershey]

The ACLU will be all over this.

[Poison Pill]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.

[nickcarraway]

“May commit,” is way too low a bar for my taste.

[omega4179]

Yep. Roberts failed.

[D-fendr]

Yep, it’s Pre-Crime incarceration.

Abhorrent as some of the perps are, this is not the process the US uses to deal with criminals.

[OldNavyVet]

A visit to Jamestown, Virginia reveals that our forefathers considered incarceration for more than one year to be cruel and unusual punishment ... meaning that those deserving more than one year were mercifully hung.

[nickcarraway]

Maybe they should be.

[porter_knorr]

I am all in favor of the those convicted of these types of crime to be in prison as long as possible. I do not agree with longer than sentenced though - the states need to come up with a law that makes other arrangements when a prison term is completed as part of a sentence.

[ColdOne]

The ACLU will be all over this. Interesting to see if they are?

[nickcarraway]

Surprisingly, I haven’t found one article mentioning them, or a press release.

[Buckeye McFrog]

then why is Bill Clinton running around here campaigning for Mark Critz?