Prepared Society Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,240 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
High Court Upholds Sex Offender Law

The Fox articles states in part, Justice Breyer says there are sound reasons for the law adding that "The Federal Government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose."

This should scare the hell out of all of us. Sure, the emotional, knee-jerk reaction is, "GOOD! LET THE PERVS ROT IN JAIL". But what if "The Feds" want to "protect nearby communities from the danger" those anti-Obama, gun totin', radical Christian freaks who might get arrested for trespassing during a protest might pose? What about anyone who ever attended a militia meeting? And just exactly who in the Federal Government makes that call?

Can't possibly be politically influenced or motivated, can it? (Politically motivated? Hmm. Did you read the other headline today: Obama's aunt gets to stay.) And what ever happened to due process and the checks and balances of the three branches of government? Our courts are supposed to adjudicate our laws by trying and, if found guilty, sentencing individuals. Now, someone in the federal government can arbitrarily keep someone who has served their time indefinetly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
It doesn't make sense to me. Why not just change the sentencing to mandatory life in prison for violent sex offenders? Similar to the 3-strike rule in California. The whole "hold them indefinately" thing seems like a waste of time.

But if you are getting arrested for trespassing during a protest, you are doing something wrong. The constitution allows you the right to peacably assemble. But when you are disturbing the peace, damaging private property, trespassing, spitting on or otherwise attacking your fellow man, you are no longer peaceful. And should be arrested.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,733 Posts
High Court Upholds Sex Offender Law

The Fox articles states in part, Justice Breyer says there are sound reasons for the law adding that "The Federal Government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose."

This should scare the hell out of all of us. Sure, the emotional, knee-jerk reaction is, "GOOD! LET THE PERVS ROT IN JAIL". But what if "The Feds" want to "protect nearby communities from the danger" those anti-Obama, gun totin', radical Christian freaks who might get arrested for trespassing during a protest might pose? What about anyone who ever attended a militia meeting? And just exactly who in the Federal Government makes that call?

Can't possibly be politically influenced or motivated, can it? (Politically motivated? Hmm. Did you read the other headline today: Obama's aunt gets to stay.) And what ever happened to due process and the checks and balances of the three branches of government? Our courts are supposed to adjudicate our laws by trying and, if found guilty, sentencing individuals. Now, someone in the federal government can arbitrarily keep someone who has served their time indefinetly?
Can you elaborate on how this will or can affect us here on being prepared?
 

·
I invented the internet. :rofl:
Joined
·
3,698 Posts
Can you elaborate on how this will or can affect us here on being prepared?
I believe the idea is that if they can do it to one group of "offenders" they can do it to anyone, including preppers, survivalists, Christians, Moslems, gun owners, militia members etc. All they need to do is determine that under certain criteria, people who believe or behave a certain way are a threat to society and should be locked up indefinitely. I'd like to say it's a ridiculous assertion but history has proven otherwise. Look at the incarceration of Japanese Americans in WW2 or persecution in other countries.

All it takes is a general dislike or distrust of specified people groups. Granted, it's difficult to feel compassion for sexual predators (who wouldn't want them to be locked up forever?) but where does it end?

I'm very much against burning the American flag in protest and believe that if someone wants to burn it they should wrap it around themselves first then set it on fire. However, simply because I find it offensive shouldn't make it illegal. It's definitely a form of speech that is, and should be, protected under the First Amendment. I'm a Christian and find a crucifix displayed in a bottle of urine extrememly offensive but it is legal. I don't believe the "artist" should be incarcerated (I don't think he should receive government support for it though).

We like to call ourselves "preppers" becasue the press has given "survivalist" a bad name. But think about it. In what ways are we different? We've just adopted a more politically correct term for the same thing many of us have been doing for many years. I used to be a survivalist but now I'm a prepper? What's changed? Only how the name is percieved by the general public. And with a little manipulation by the press or government the term "prepper" may become a dergoatory term as well and anyone taking part on this forum could be targeted as an enemy of the people.

The Bill of Rights is not there to protect the majority. It's there to protect the minority. We should hold these laws/rights in the highest regard because if we don't we may find ourselves in that minority someday and wish we had.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I for one am glad to see this. I have been complaining for years that we should never let violent sex offenders/child molester out of prison.

These people, regardless of your religious belief, or political affiliation, have committed an atrocity, and in my belief should be removed from society permanently. It would be difficult to lead persecution of rapist to persecution of Christians. That what would be the outcome of persecuting Christianity? It would only serve to enforce the core of belief that they are being persecuted.
 

·
I invented the internet. :rofl:
Joined
·
3,698 Posts
I for one am glad to see this. I have been complaining for years that we should never let violent sex offenders/child molester out of prison.

These people, regardless of your religious belief, or political affiliation, have committed an atrocity, and in my belief should be removed from society permanently. It would be difficult to lead persecution of rapist to persecution of Christians. That what would be the outcome of persecuting Christianity? It would only serve to enforce the core of belief that they are being persecuted.
Then they should have severe penalties imposed for that crime as mentioned by allen_idaho in a previous post. But don't play games with our Constitutional rights. To keep someone in prison because they might commit a crime is bad policy.

Isn't this the basis for many of our more restrictive gun-control laws, that people shouldn't own them because they might use them in a crime? Wasn't this the reason they locked up American citizens of Japanese descent during WW2, because they might harm the rest of us?

I'd like to share your optimism that the people in power can be trusted but I don't. Maybe I live near too many Indian reservations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,240 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
mosquitoman, I was going to respond to BBob and Logic, but you said it better than I could have.

Yup. If The Fed can lock a sex offender away indefinitely to "protect the public", then it is indeed a very small step to to protect the public by locking up ____________________ (fill in the blank) indefinitely.
 

·
Junior Member
Joined
·
71 Posts
It is not a "very small step" from locking people away indefinitely. These are convicted criminals, usually convicted of very heinous crimes, and they go through constant evaluation while they are incarcerated. Through these evaluations most sex offenders are found to be highly likely to re-offend. If these individuals have the same sexual desires and have no remorse for the crimes they have committed they are still a danger to society. I don't see how anyone can draw a conclusion that locking away a sexual deviant can lead to cracking down on Christians, gun owners, or protestors. While freedom to assemble and the right to bear arms are protected under the constitution, the right to have sex with children is not.
 

·
I invented the internet. :rofl:
Joined
·
3,698 Posts
It is not a "very small step" from locking people away indefinitely. These are convicted criminals, usually convicted of very heinous crimes, and they go through constant evaluation while they are incarcerated. Through these evaluations most sex offenders are found to be highly likely to re-offend. If these individuals have the same sexual desires and have no remorse for the crimes they have committed they are still a danger to society. I don't see how anyone can draw a conclusion that locking away a sexual deviant can lead to cracking down on Christians, gun owners, or protestors. While freedom to assemble and the right to bear arms are protected under the constitution, the right to have sex with children is not.
Then we should have a "three strikes" or similar law regarding such crimes, not a blanket policy saying you can keep them locked up forever. And history would seem to prove that it is a very small step to locking up a segment of society for what they might do.

It's easy to loose the focus when sexual predators are the example being used. They're even on the bottom of the totem pole in prison. But look at the rights we've already lost under Homeland Security. Look at the bogus FBI raid on the militia group. The judge chewed them out in the bail hearing for their lack of evidence and their misrepresentation of the evidence they did have. The RICO act which was intended to be used against organized crime was used to stop non-violent anti-abortion protests ... a perfectly legal activity and a perfect example how a law designed specifically for a specific situation could be abused. Thankfully in this instance a higher court overturned the initial verdict.

Never operate under the assumtpion that people will only do what's "rational." When there is fear, greed or just the desire for power people can become very irrational. The masses can be very easily swayed during times of fear or distress. It's been proven over and over and over in history.

There are much wiser ways to keep sexual predators in prison than to embark on as dangerous a legal precedent as this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Then they should have severe penalties imposed for that crime as mentioned by allen_idaho in a previous post. But don't play games with our Constitutional rights. To keep someone in prison because they might commit a crime is bad policy.

Isn't this the basis for many of our more restrictive gun-control laws, that people shouldn't own them because they might use them in a crime? Wasn't this the reason they locked up American citizens of Japanese descent during WW2, because they might harm the rest of us?

I'd like to share your optimism that the people in power can be trusted but I don't. Maybe I live near too many Indian reservations.
In all honesty I'm not really talking about locking them up. I think they have passed any societal point of return and should be executed. I see the crime as being unable to redeem from. I believe life long sentences are cruel. Would you be willing to live in any proximity to a rapist regardless of what they are doing? I wouldn't.

I hate to be the jerk on this one, but it's not like breaking treaties was all one sided America screwing the natives. There was a lot of give and take there. I'm not saying we didn't do all kinds of wrong, I'm just saying the Natives weren't this peace loving harm no man society that public perception has morphed them into, but then that's best saved for another thread.
 

·
The Skeptic
Joined
·
280 Posts
In all honesty I'm not really talking about locking them up. I think they have passed any societal point of return and should be executed. I see the crime as being unable to redeem from. I believe life long sentences are cruel. Would you be willing to live in any proximity to a rapist regardless of what they are doing? I wouldn't.
hmm I think that's a bit of a stretch, of course I'm opposed to the death penalty myself (blame my christian upbringing that everyone is capable of redemption; read: everyone)

I understand the response though, it just seems "safer" for society to execute the most heinous among us.

But people make dumb choices. In no way am I excusing these actions, they should be punished for said choices, but ending a life is something that we as humans shouldn't resort to simply because we're afraid of future actions. I'm with mosquitomountainman on that point, but I side with drhwest that it isn't a small step from incarcerating any undesirables. It would take major overhaul to equate sex crimes with say republicans or preppers or gun owners. (I think that was what you guys were getting at, that if they can do it to some they can do it to any)

I think I'm rambling now lol...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,240 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
but I side with drhwest that it isn't a small step from incarcerating any undesirables. It would take major overhaul to equate sex crimes with say republicans or preppers or gun owners. (I think that was what you guys were getting at, that if they can do it to some they can do it to any)

I think I'm rambling now lol...
My deepest concern here is the dismanteling of what we Americans have always believed in: an orderly, predictable form of justice -- that justice being administered through the courts. If found guilty, the individual would be sentenced to a specific punishment determined by established law and administered by a judge. When you have satisfied your sentence, whatever that might have been, you are free -- with a few strings attached perhaps.

The Supreme Court just turned that principal on its head, and apparently handed some appointed federal beuaracrat the power to keep a prisoner jailed indefinately -- well beyond the sentence for the crime he has committed. Nothing says this applies only to perverts. Nothing in the ruling says the same "Protect the public" principal could not be applied to any other crime for which a citizen has been convicted, and WHO in the federal goverment decides who to keep and for how long? Those things have ALWAYS been the pervue of the judiciary.

The problem leading to this Supreme Court ruling atrocity is that violent criminals are being sentenced far too lightly. But that is no reason to gut long-established American rule of law.
 

·
The Skeptic
Joined
·
280 Posts
My deepest concern here is the dismanteling of what we Americans have always believed in: an orderly, predictable form of justice -- that justice being administered through the courts. If found guilty, the individual would be sentenced to a specific punishment determined by established law and administered by a judge. When you have satisfied your sentence, whatever that might have been, you are free -- with a few strings attached perhaps.
True, but those strings, which are usually parole based, are the same strings being pulled to flip the system aren't they? Not saying do away with parole, but agreeing that this is effed up.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top