The US Supreme Court has ruled that a law which allows “sexually dangerous” prisoners to be jailed forever without trial does not violate the Constitution.
The case centres on Graydon Comstock, who was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to three years imprisonment. Immediately prior to this sentence he served a separate sentence for engaging in lewd acts with a minor.
Six days prior to the end of his sentence, the government branded him a “sexually dangerous” paedophile who might reoffend, and denied him release, placing him into indefinite “civil commitment” in a federal prison.
He has since spent nearly three years in prison despite having been convicted of no further crime, and having served his sentence.
Release of such “committed” prisoners is possible only if they are deemed to be no longer dangerous – without a treatment program recognised as being capable of this, their imprisonment effectively becomes indefinite.
The law responsible for extending this practice to the federal level, the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was soon challenged by prisoners now being denied release indefinitely, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court justices finally ruled 7 to 2 in favour of the law:
“It is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the civil commitment of dangerous federal prisoners.”
Democrats are delighted by the victory – Obama even recently promoted the lady who argued for indefinite sentences on behalf of the federal government, Elena Kagan, to the Supreme Court herself.
She is on record as having argued that the government should be able to restrict any speech it considers “harmful,” irrespective of the First Amendment
A Democratic senator holds forth in support of the decision:
“The process to enact this law to protect our children from those who would do them harm was difficult. I am heartened to see an overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court uphold this important child protection law.”
Some states already operate similar laws, but this decision ensures the federal government can now freely override sentences throughout the land.
The solicitor general for Kansas, Stephen McAllister, a supporter of the law, suggests that allowing indefinite civil commitment for all kinds of criminals might now be possible:
“Constitutionally, it might be possible. I don’t have a constitutionally limiting line for what kinds of mental disorders might be permissible and what [might] not. If they lead to danger to others, potentially, they could be covered under such a law.”
I don’t know every detail of the U.S. constitution, but if it doesn’t cover fair trials for EVERYONE, then that needs to be worked on. Too bad some politicians are working on ways to make the constitution even worse, like those against freedom of marriage. Putting restrictions on free speech based on what the government considers harmful? I thought democrats were supposed to be against this crap!
The democratic party is the go-to party for say one thing, do another, and talk out of both sides of your face. EVERYTHING they do is based on advancing their own political goals.
Republicans had been moving in that direction, they’re wedged between wanting to play the same game because of how well it works, but holding back because they’re getting elected by having a more stable and honest image.
“…the government should be able to restrict any speech it considers ‘harmful’, irrespective of the First Amendment”
Who the hell decides the definition of ‘harmful’? If I call the Supreme Court a ‘bunch of jackasses’, I have harmed their dignity. Should I be arrested for it? This is totalitarian crap, People!
There was this law that they can keep sexual offenders indefinitely in prison in Germany, too. Then, some weeks ago, the European Parliament ruled it unconstitutional and it had to be abolished. Some Bavarian politicians’ reaction: “We have to pass another law that allows it without violating the European constitution.”
Some politicians don’t even get it when pushed in their faces… Where’s the good old “your country’s servant” mentality instead of vote hunting and populism?
so wait does this mean i can go to jail for having some l♥♥i on my computer? god damn im running out of reasons to still live in the USA
Make a law that says any sex offender must either serve life in prison or cut their dick off. Also castrate them as that is where man juice is produced. Castration will weaken them.