SCOTUS: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

This decision does not rule on the due process implications of this law -- only on whether the Federal government has the power to write this type of law.

States have long held the power to, for instance, commit mentally ill individuals against their will -- with a process of judicial review and a burden of proof on the state -- if they are deemed a danger to society.

All this decision says is that the Constitution grants the Federal government the same power. It doesn't rule on whether this particular law violates the Constitution in numerous other ways. Which it well might.

 

And who argued the case before the Court, Law_Student?

 

The same person that argued Citizens Union vs. FEC.

And, according to Obama, that case should have been a layup.

It's one of six cases she's ever tried in her life.

 

Question - don't states already have this power under to the involuntary commitment when someone is a danger to himself or others statute, or does that necessitate classifying sexual crimes as a mental illness, which is a whole other can of worms?

 

Involuntary commitment, however, is generally limited in duration.

 

The issue of the constitutionality of preventative detainment of convicted sex offenders on due process grounds came before the court in Kansas v. Hendricks 521 U.S. 346 (1997), and was ruled constitutional on a 5-4 decision. (Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, O’Connor, Kennedy).

This ruling merely states that such a power is also granted to the federal government under the necessary and proper clause.

It's an interesting position for Scalia and Thomas to take. Essentially, they're saying the necessary and proper clause gives the federal government the power to establish a prison and hold prisoners to protect enumerated rights only. The example they use is that Congress has the enumerated power to establish post offices and it is necessary and proper to punish those who steal the mail in order to carry out their enumerated power.

The other justices -- to varying degrees -- take a wider view of the clause.

 

Scalia and Thomas march in lockstep when it comes to privacy matters as well as personal liberties. So not a surprising vote.

 

At this point, we've had medical doctors, psychologists, etc. analyzing what makes sexual predators tick -- or they've tried. There's a high recidivism rate. I'm not sure what the answer is but we have to keep these monsters away from our children, some way, somehow.

 

Given the numbers earlier in this thread, I'm not sure the recidivism rate is all that much higher than for your general domestic violence guy, felony drunk driver, drug dealer or burglar though...

 

Right, how long until you begin justifying this for any crime?