17 Comments

1. Scott Jacobs  •  May 17, 2010 @7:32 pm
   

   Shouldn't that be "Today the law is AN ass"?

2. Scott Jacobs  •  May 17, 2010 @7:33 pm
   

   Oh sweet Jesus, I've become on of THOSE people… I'm gonna go hit my junk with a hammer as punishment now… Sorry…

3. Patrick  •  May 17, 2010 @7:41 pm
   

   It's a Dickens quote. Blame Mr. Bumble.

4. KipEsquire  •  May 17, 2010 @7:43 pm
   

   FWIW, the due process issue was not before the Court in Comstock, only the N&P question. Not disagreeing with you. Just saying…

5. Ken  •  May 17, 2010 @7:55 pm
   

   Kip is right. I've already gotten grumped at by Old Man Greenfield over this, but its true. Details matter. Procedural posture matters.

   If today had been Kansas v. Hendricks instead of Comstock, I'd agree with you. But the due process horse has long since left the barn, and Comstock was only about limitation of enumerated powers.

6. GregS  •  May 18, 2010 @8:13 am
   

   If your goal is to expand the power of government, and to eliminate a restriction placed on that power by the constitution, the way to do it is to find some case where that restriction would benefit some loathsome person, and then to convince people that in extreme cases like that, the restriction shouldn't apply. For example, if a violent rapist's prison sentence is about to end and he's going to be released. This establishes the precedent, and the principle, that, when justified by circumstances, the government can ignore that restriction. Once the principle is established, it's easy to start expanding its application – if the government can keep violent rapists in prison after their sentences end, then logically they should also have the power to keep ordinary rapists, sex offenders, murderers, armed robbers, drug dealers, and other potentially dangerous criminals in prison indefinitely. And once that becomes the norm, the temptation to expand this to ever more offenses will be impossible to resist.

7. Chris  •  May 18, 2010 @8:28 am
   

   There's a facility in Minnesota for sex offenders. It's a "treatment facility", so they can keep people there forever. And they do. Nobody's ever been released.

   Despite it not being a prison, any attempt to furnish it in a way that might make its residents comfortable immediately becomes a political football. It's a prison in all but name.

   I'm deeply uncomfortable with this, and I really don't understand how it can be legal.

8. Patrick  •  May 18, 2010 @8:42 am
   

   I'd explain the Court's reasoning (which I was able to divine without reading the opinions) but that would force another argument between my brain and my stomach, which continues to insist, in its primal way, that this is just stupid.

9. Grandy  •  May 18, 2010 @9:24 am
   

   What GregS said. Also Chris, about the uncomfortability. And Patrick with the stupid.

10. DMG  •  May 18, 2010 @9:46 am
    

    Read the following comment elsewhere, but haven't read the entire opinion myself yet:

    "…[I]t’s limited to mentally ill people convicted of violent sexual assaults and/or child molestation, the burden of proof is “clear and convincing evidence” (the highest burden of proof in our judicial system), and the inmate is entitled to judicial review every six months."

    If true we wouldn't be talking about a 17 year old who had been found sane in the first place, would we? At least there's a mechanism for review, I guess. I don't know exactly where I stand on it yet, but the initial reports made it sound much worse than it does now.

11. Chris  •  May 18, 2010 @11:18 am
    

    Yeah, I don't doubt that I could find some sort of explanation that would be understandable to laymen and explain why this is all perfectly rational. That doesn't change the feeling in the pit of my stomach.

    It's like one of those optical illusions where you're struck with vertigo even if you know how it really works, but with morals and my selse of justice.

12. Jdog  •  May 18, 2010 @11:21 am
    

    I don't mind being stupid — by now, I'm kind of used to it — so "yes, but"…

    Bear in mind that in order to have convicted our 17 year old in the first place, the sentencing court must have found him to be sane.

    Couldn't that mean, in this context, yeah, he's nuttier than a fruitcake but he's sane enough that he knew what he was doing, knew it was wrong and he's able to usefully participate in his own defense?

13. jb  •  May 18, 2010 @1:20 pm
    

    The problem here is that if the perpetrator is bad enough to justify putting post-prison restraints on, he's almost certainly bad enough to keep in prison. The idea that once out of prison he will reform while the lesser retraints protect society from him is nonsense.

14. David Schwartz  •  May 18, 2010 @7:45 pm
    

    "Clear and convincing evidence" is a lesser standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt", the standard required for incarceration.

15. DMG  •  May 19, 2010 @6:23 am
    

    If it's considered a civil commitment, then "clear and convincing" is the highest standard available since it wouldn't be a criminal case..

16. mojo  •  May 20, 2010 @12:26 pm
    

    Unconstitutional, on it's face. More penumbras and emanations.

17. andrews  •  May 20, 2010 @4:35 pm
    

    There is also a facility in Florida (Arcadia area) where they keep these folks. Officially it is not a prison. Oddly enough it sits right next door to one, built with the same sort of fences and other decoration. If the sign did not say "civil commitment facility" you would surely think it a prison.

    I do not think anyone has ever been "cured" so as to be released.

2 Trackbacks

• May 17, 2010: Random Nuclear Strikes » Interesting Analysis
• May 17, 2010: May 18 roundup