1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, May 17, 2010.

  1. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    But how can we be safe if we don't lock everyone up?
     
  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Well, yeah, that's what makes this difficult.

    Certainly if a guy is still telling his therapist -- or whoever -- that he still has urges to molest young girls or rape women, then you've got to keep him locked up. You just have to.

    If he's saying he's rehabilitated, that's where we need to be able to rely on professionals to gauge how rehabilitated they are.

    And I know that we all like to think of the law in a purely theoretical way, but these cases are real.

    You're really talking about releasing a committed pedophile or rapist.

    The Constitution is not a death pact.
     
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    You're not being serious. You know that there are real offenders this applies to.

    This is not a theoretical exercise.

    Should we look up the particulars in some of these cases? Would you be so glib?
     
  4. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    You can stretch that an awful damn long way, though. I'd rather not be burglarized, but that doesn't mean we refuse to release any convicted burglar after he completes his term.

    If you'd like, you can explain exactly how the increased restrictions on sex offenders who *are* released have helped, rather than harmed, efforts to track them. Except that'll be difficult, because they haven't. They've made them *harder* to find than they were before.
     
  5. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member


    Yes. But which ones?

    And who decides?

    You?
     
  6. Brian

    Brian Well-Known Member

    I can't believe I'm saying this but...

    I...agree...with...Clarence...Thomas...on...this....

    That was hard to get out.
     
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    How is that true?

    Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were the two justices who dissented. Their rationale in their written opinion (put simplistically) was limited government--or more specifically, that the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to enact the kind of law that gave rise to the law suit. I don't think either truly believes that government should be limited in every way, shape or form, as you put it (they have agendas), but they are very often the two who issue opinions with a rationale of judicial restraint (even if they occasionally pick and choose their spots, which makes some people question their consistency).

    What do you find bizarre?
     
  8. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Did I simply slip into a coma through the portion of history where it was decided that "sex offender" is worse than "murderer"?
     
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Aside from the merits of the Supreme Court case, I don't think it's a matter of worse for most people. There's a sense that a murderer doesn't necessarily feel the compulsion to chronically murder people, but many sex offenders will repeat their offenses if they are free.
     
  10. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    The world is coming to an end because I agree with both Thomas and Scalia on this ruling too.
     
  11. Except, you know serial killers.
    But that's moot because most of them are locked up for life or executed.
     
  12. Why do I have this mental image of them singing "Ebony and Ivory?"
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page