Dangerous Precedent?

Let's take the term "sex offender" out of this for a moment.

If I, being of limited mental faculties and acumen, understand this right, Congress now has the power to hold an offender in prison AFTER they have served their time.

I agree with the dissenting on this. I don't see that as Constitutional at all. Isn't that taking away from the states their own jurisdiction in such matters?

A judge hands down a sentence and, except for appeals, that should be that. Neither Congress nor Federal authorities should have the power to determine someone is dangerous and needs to stay locked up. Who makes that determination and, if they're allowed to do so, why bother with the judges at all?

The solution, of course, is longer (much longer) sentences in the first place instead of sissy nitwit pissant judges slapping them on the wrist. But if you start with one type of offense, where will it end? And mind you, this is a conservative court that upheld this and a conservative congress that originally passed it so we can't (goddamitalltohell) blame it on Barry and friends.

Now, put the term "sex offender" back into it. My view doesn't change EXCEPT that the original sentence should maybe be tie them to a stump in the woods and cover them in honey. And wait. . .

Newsmax:

Supreme Court: Sex Offenders Can Stay Locked Away After Terms End
Monday, 17 May 2010 12:36 PM

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" indefinitely after their prison terms are complete.

The high court' 7-2 judgment reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of those considered "sexually dangerous."

"The statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.

In 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates.

The act, named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse but declared incompetent to stand trial.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered "sexually dangerous."

But "we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact" this law, Breyer said.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan successfully argued the government's case in front of the Supreme Court.

During those arguments in January, Kagan, now the nominee to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, compared the government's power to commit sexual predators with its power to quarantine federal inmates whose sentences have expired but have a highly contagious and deadly disease.

"Would anybody say that the federal government would not have Article I power to effect that kind of public safety measure? And the exact same thing is true here. This is exactly what Congress is doing here," she said.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court's judgment, saying Congress can pass laws only that deal with the federal powers listed in the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution "expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the federal government with such a power," Thomas said.

Joining Thomas in part on his dissent was Justice Antonin Scalia.

Chief Justice John Roberts last year granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice's order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration's appeal.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not being challenged.

State laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders also are unaffected.