Supreme Court Rules Sex Offenders Can Be Imprisoned After Sentences Expire

The Supreme Court ruled today that convicted sex offenders can be imprisoned even after their sentences expire if they are determined to be mentally ill and sexually dangerous.

In a decision by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court upheld a federal law that allows dangerous sex offenders to remain in prison if the federal government proves by clear and convincing evidence they would have "serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation" if released.

The case came about when the government sought to detain five men who had been convicted or charged with federal sex offenses. Three had pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing child pornography and a fourth had pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor. The fifth man was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, but was found incompetent to stand trial.

The five men argued that continuing to detain them violated their constitutional rights. A federal appeals court agreed that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law.

In overturning the appeals court decision, the Court emphasized that the constitutional clause at issue "grants Congress broad authority to enact federal legislation."

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Court was granting Congress broad powers that should be left to the states.

See Also: Ruling on Juvenile Life Sentences Invalidates Laws in 37 States

[Overruled1]

I am against sex offenders, but am for legitimacy in justice.

To keep sex offenders in jail past their sentances is unusual and is cruel.
That being said, they get what they deserve, but it is not for our justice system to do more. Justice must be blind, and not biased, which is the case here.

The argument made against sex offenders is legitimate, but unfair characterization since it can be made of any type of prisoner in the system...

I feel bad for the victims, who can never be made right by any means.

I feel this is only become a means for corrupted jailers to maintain a population that looks threatening and invites even higher pay to the guards that make way too much for the jobs they do.

I've done some research and find that the prison guards union in Calfornia for example has grown dramatically in a way no others have ever. Their pay has gone from in 1979 dollars of $15-30 thousand to today's dollars in the $100,000 yearly,....this is ridicules...yet factual...three strikes has cost us alot..it was intended for use against organized crime, but in reality has been used in every aspect of justice.

So, today they want to keep the sex offenders, tomorrow the buglers will be imprisoned using the same arguments. Watchout America....National Socialism is in play.

[Idisagree]

The court has failed it its duties today. It is to forbid cruel or unusual punishments. It is usual for the government to hold prisoners after there sentence has been served, I think not, so therefore it is unusual and should have been forbidden. It would have been more appropriate to adjust the initial sentence to life in prison with parole are they deemed safe to reenter society. This is a very dangerous precedent, next on the list is Kleptomania, exaggerated, yes but possible. It is sad that court ruled on their emotions instead of there intelligence.

[Idisagree]

The court has failed it its duties today. It is to forbid cruel or unusual punishments. It is usual for the government to hold prisoners after there sentence has been served, I think not, so therefore it is unusual and should have been forbidden. It would have been more appropriate to adjust the initial sentence to life in prison with parole are they deemed safe to reenter society. This is a very dangerous precedent, next on the list is Kleptomania, exaggerated, yes but possible. It is sad that court ruled on their emotions instead of there intelligence.

[magnumdr]

Lock them up and dont let them see the daylight for the time that they serve, and I hope that is a life sentance. There is no excuse for sexually assaulting a child and dont come up with any excuses for why they did it. It was rheir choice and nothing more.

[tmittelstaed]

"...If our SUPREME court can conclude that singling out ONE particular crime is NOT discriminating against other crimes, I'm lost. To rule that a person possessing or viewing child pornography is a real physical threat to society, that LOOKING at pictures cannot be cured..."

The psychiatrists have generally concluded that it is IMPOSSIBLE to "cure" sexual attraction to children, or sexual arousal though violence. In other words if the only way the guy can get aroused and have a sexual release is via rape, or the only way he can get aroused is by viewing child porn, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to change him.

If I suggested to you that I could "cure" you of being a Hetrosexual and turn you into a Homosexual you would probably strongly object. So then why are you claiming that a pedophile can be changed? It's exactly the same thing.

Of course, many pedophiles and many people only arousable by violence choose to force themselves to refrain completely from sex, and spend the rest of their lives asexual. But it is just as hard for them to do this as it would be for you, a straight person, to force yourself to have gay sex for the rest of your life.

The child porno pedophiles and rapists who FAILED to refrain and committed the rape anyway, they are a lost cause. Once they committ the first crime history has shown it'a virtual certainty they will reoffend. It would be like if you, a straight person, were forced to have gay sex for your entire life except for ONE time when you got to have sex with a member of the opposite sex. You would almost certainly "reoffend" too.

The SCOTUS is just acknowledging the reality of the situation here. Yes it's not a pretty one, but realities never are.

[ddog88]

Very well written. Why is the point that you clearly make so hard for some to understand?

[us_1776]

tmittelstaed, the only problem that I have with this ruling is the fact that we should not be looking at the person who has completed his sentence as continuing to be "in prison". Rather for the necessary protection of the society, they should be put in a non-penal facility that separates them from society. To continue to incarcerate them in a 'penal' facility seems to violate the notion that a person serves his sentence and therefore has paid his debt for his crime.

[tsigili]

Funny thing about the justice system.....they just use it in any way that suits them......from releasing people years before their sentences are up, to keeping people in jail long after their sentences have expired.

Personally, I call that perversion of justice, and corruption, myself. The judicial system in the US is totally broken and needs to be fixed, from the Supreme Court, on down.

[melpol1]

Maximum sentence for any crime but intentional murder should be a year of water boarding. The punishment is severe enough, it would close down prisons and save billions. Long term incarceration is an unnecessary expense for honest hardworking taxpayers. They are the ones that should be shown mercy.

[daniwitz13-2009]

If our SUPREME court can conclude that singling out ONE particular crime is NOT discriminating against other crimes, I'm lost. To rule that a person possessing or viewing child pornography is a real physical threat to society, that LOOKING at pictures cannot be cured, that other crimes that actually hurt people, need NOT have this same punishment. I am now more fearful of the law if judges "think" this way. Ironic that they have ruled that teens cannot have this punishment, implying that age is the criteria here. That indeed only teens can change and that they will NOT reoccur their crime. Only clairvoyants need apply for job. Our courts are ruling more and more into the minds of citizens. And sadly we let them.

[daniwitz13-2009]

I find it incomprehensible that any mind, legal or not, can discriminate for a particular crime, this form of sentence. Why then not other crimes or all crimes? This could be termed cruel and unusual sentence. This is NOT to say they don't need treatment. There surly MUST be/have other ways to address the problem instead of this unconstitutional way. Take the child pornography case, are they saying, if he gets out he will continue looking at child pornography, of which thousands if not millions are doing in America? These Justices must be senile at best.