Posted on 10/29/2005 2:06:43 AM PDT by Quaker
From the article:
Sexual predators must register with the state for the rest of their lives...
So, basically, what this is saying is that the new law will require him to perform certain actions based on his convictions (in this case for the rest of his life). That's the definition of "punishment." If today the legislature decided that a $500 fine should go with each speeding violation, could they then make you pay it for a speeding ticket you got in 1994? Of course not, because they are adding an additional punishment based on your previous conviction. Likewise, requiring him to register with the state (for which he can be jailed if he does not comply) is a new punishment.
No one is defending child molesters here (there'd be a lot fewer problems like this if we'd just lock them up permanently... or worse), but the SCOFLA is correct on this one...
The man is clearly a danger to children and society in general.
What a lot of people offer as a cure for the problem is easily 1 million times more dangerous than letting the man go.
For example, I just recently found out that SCOTUS overruled a KS decision that found that sexual predators could not be identified after being released. In other words, SCOTUS decided that even though the men had served their entire sentence, the court could arbitrarily extend that sentence on the simple word of a psychologist. It seems similar to the situation decribed in this thread, this one just hasn't been overturned by SCOTUS yet. Hopefully, we will have another Constitutional member on the Court before it gets there.
These are truly situations where the phrase 'the cure is worse than the disease' fits perfectly. One only has to look at the Russian Gulags to see what direction this is headed. Millions of very brave, very loved, young AMericans have died to protect us from this. I hope their deaths weren't in vain.
Stopping a man from raping dozens of children (multiplied by thousands) is a slippery slope too scary for you to even consider? Sorry, but I don't consider keeping tabs on sexual predators to be a hair's breadth from starting a gulag franchise.
I don't understand your first sentence.
Yes. Any law implies punishment if you don't follow the law, else it is useless.
If you ran a stop sign, and were convicted with a $100 fine, and next week the statute were changed to levy a $200 fine, would you have objection to the state billing you for a extra $100? 
In the case of the Lautenberg amendment, a better analogy would be that next week the state changed the law to now saying that you could not own an automobile or vote because of the previous conviction.
And we are to believe that is not punishment, but merely "labeling"?
That's shallow, short term thinking.
In your response to this, please address the moral, if not Constitutional, question of punishing anyone after they have fully served their original sentence.
The same way they ruled that a right to privacy trumps the right to life, or that the power to regulate commerce means that Congress can criminalize the growing of crops on one's own land for one's own personal consumption. In other words, by being legislators, and not judges.
The Supreme Court isn't always right. And over the last 7 decades, they've been making wrong decisions that are clearly wrong way beyond any reasonable doubt ever more frequently--and often ignoring stare decisis in the very same decision.
No, the SCOTUS ruled that the men had not served their entire sentence. Their sentence involves registration, forfeiture of rights re: gun possession and voting. Those things are for life and occur because they committed actions after the laws were passed that imposed such punishments.
I explained this in a previous post, but let me reiterate. Its not punishment. Or at least, the real question of whether it is punishment is the crux.
I'm not for adding more punishment, and some restrictions may be seen as punishment (I'm open to discuss that). What I don't object to is tracking individuals and notifying neighbors, even if this decision is made after the commission of the crime. There is no freedom to live without the stigma of your previous crimes following you.
Did the government commit ex post facto violations when it created forms that ask, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
Once again. Their is no protection in the Constitution from having to carry the stigma of your crimes, even after you've been punished.
You seem to be making my point. Your false analogy is an ex post facto punishment that is imposed by the state after the fact.
Once again. Their is no protection in the Constitution from having to carry the stigma of your crimes, even after you've been punished.
So? You are confusing punishment imposed by the State (the requirement of the license plate) with stigma of the crime, carried out by individuals. It is just a bit of sophistry to get around the prohibition on ex post facto law.
As it was described to me by someone who is close to the KS decision, registration was not part of the original sentence. It was added later. That's why the KS Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.
Registration after the fact is morally wrong, and in spite of the SCOTUS ruling, I think it is also unconstitutional.
I'd comment, but it was a 5-4 decision by the only qualified people to decide such a case, so I have to keep my unqualified mouth shut.
Suppose we passed a law that required all non-citizen immigrants to contact INS every year to update their address, work status, etc. Would it be unconstitutional to apply that law to immigrants who are already here, vs. new ones who arrive in the future?
From a legal standpoint, the SCOFLA made the right decision here.
If someone can be determined by mental health experts, according to legal standards, to be a danger to themselves or others then they should be subject to either monitering or commitment. There's nothing wrong with confining a dangerous psychopath. It's just common sense.
You do understand that the DUmmies over at the DUmp think you and I are dangerous psychopaths, don't you? GWB is one too, that goes without saying.
They came pretty close in 2004 to be at the left hand of the President.
I think the predators we are talking about are extremely dangerous, and many of them need to be sentenced to death by a court of law, and the execution carried out quickly. I don't care about the deterrent aspect, I just want them permanently gone. If some up and coming predator learns from it, that's just a bonus.
The correct way to do this is change laws, (O’Reilly is making a contribution to that) and force the court to apply them. The idea that somehow we can 'go back' and punish further will end badly. Either you and I will be in jail, or the DUmmies will. History has proven that over and over again, which is why the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution as it is.
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.