- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 59,750,471
A second person has died after a shooting Friday at a mall in Sacramento, California, police say cnn.it/2JoliYm
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 59,750,471
Pope Francis has elevated Archbishop Wilton Gregory to cardinal, the first African American in Catholic history toâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…vN
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 59,750,471
More than 60 people have been arrested during an anti-lockdown protest in London, police said cnn.it/3liEVOO
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 59,750,471
Fierce fighting has broken out in the capital of Ethiopia's Tigray region, eyewitnesses say cnn.it/36dSsmA
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 59,750,471
Tony Hsieh, the former CEO of Zappos, dies at 46 cnn.it/3mmbUDy
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 59,750,471
Los Angeles County issues a new order banning public and private gatherings with people outside a single householdâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…sC
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 59,750,471
The US has had more than 13 million coronavirus cases, according to Johns Hopkins University's count. It reached 12â€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…CO
CNN POLITICS ON FACEBOOK » | CNN POLITICS ON TWITTER »
May 17th, 2010
10:20 AM ET
Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely
The Supreme Court ruled Monday the federal government has the power to indefinitely keep some sex offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences, if officials determine those inmates may prove "sexually dangerous" in the future.
"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," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority.
Monday's other Supreme Court rulings:
Court: Sentencing juveniles to life without parole 'cruel and unusual'
High court rules for father in international child custody case
On Twitter
If the questions over Oxford University's and AstraZeneca's Covid-19 vaccine results are answered and it receives aâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…2z
Recent moves by Europe's politicians to delay or restrict the opening of the winter sports destinations, means fresâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…N3
Tony Hsieh, former Zappos CEO and "tremendous visionary," dies at 46 cnn.it/3qcdMAK https://t.co/WQ3Oct3YKe
The only known white giraffe in the world has been fitted with a GPS tracking device in an effort to protect him frâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…9c
Though Barca has won all four of its Champions League group games this season, the team is currently 13th in La Ligâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…J4
Good news! The current Bolshevik government can now keep people locked up for an arbitrary amount of time if they deem you to be an "enemy of the people"!
Everyone sing along! "So comrades, come rally, and the last fight let us face, The Internationale,, Unites the human race!"
um... this is a ruling by the SUPREME COURT – not the Obama administration. you see, like Glenn Beck, you sacrifice your credibility when you make statements like this.
KEEP THEM. WHO NEEDS THEM?
The best answer is to sentence these losers to life without possibility of parole in the first place. I would feel better about a court taking liberty after due process–not some appointed government bureaucrat deciding who is released and who is just too dangerous.
if you're not going to let them out after they've served their sentence, then why set a limit on the term they serve? either make it life in prison or kill them. it's ridiculous to tell someone they have a specific period of time to serve in prison, after which they will be let out... only to renege... that seems to be a slippery slope!!!
what about those who are wrongly convicted? Of course the police are never wrong
What is scary here is the number of people who think this was a good idea. Slippery slope indeed.
This ruling has just undermined our justice system. When found guilty, you are sentenced to serve jail time or given another consequence to fulfill. That is your punishment, your price to pay, in other words, for your transgression. Once your time is served, your punishment fulfilled, your debt paid to society, you are free. There may be stipulations that will eventually fall away (parole, probation) and restrictions (no right to vote, carry a weapon) but these are stipulated in the law and before the sentence is served. Once sentence is served, the sentence can't be changed because then it negates the authority of the original sentence or any sentence in our justice system. Why have sentencing at all if it can be changed?
If people are upset about the consequences of the act that was committed, change the consequences; don't make the system arbitrary and thus ambiguous and obsolete.
By the way; rehabilitation is possible for some of these folks.
This decision is mind boggling. It invites the same arbitrary sentences handed out by unlawful societies. These people, especially those who prey on children, should never be released, but the sentences should be handed down by juries or sentencing judges.
As long as prisons are the last place on earth where a person can be rehabilitated, then I think that at the very minimum they should be sent to some place that actually tries to rehabilitate after they have finished their sentence. Rehabilitation should have been part of their sentence from the beginning of their incarceration. Seems we are only really interested in sticking it to pedophiles. Murderers get out of prison all of the time and commit new murders. Rapists are repeat offenders also. Believe it or not, it is easy for a hell-bent ex-wife to point a finger at an ex-husband and scream pedophilia and it is even easier to convict. Jurors don't always want physical DNA proof and they are clueless in detecting coached testimony from a child. He said, she said will convict a man for pedophilia. Your arcane castration ideas would net a few innocent men I'm certain.
You are so right. I applaud everyone on here who is truly thinking about what this means, and not giving a knee-jerk, thoughtless reaction.
Forget about keeping them after their sentence has been fullfilled. Implement harsher penalties (i.e. Capital Punishment) and ABSOLUTELY BAN the possibility of parole for these monsters! I don't understand the concept of parole anyway. Make criminals finish their sentences. Don't bail them out early! My girlfriend's abuser will have the possiblity of parole soon. Last time he got out of jail he came straight to her door. Well guess who'll be waiting at the door with a castration kit this time!
this government = tyranny. It's time to form a new one.
It's not this government you have to worry about. Years from now on the other hand it could be abused out of control.
Don't let the far-right sound bites scare you like that. If you really think the current government is "socialist" and out to get you you've let the far-right liars get to you. That said you're right to be concerned about this. In the future an untrustworthy movement from the left or right could push too far. The far right has far more concerning support in the country right now, but that doesn't mean I'm not wary about the far left too (of which the Democratic Party is NOT controlled by, despite the sound bites).
This is just wrong if your going to punish them do it in the beginning give them a longer sentence.. But its not right for you to held in prison after your term... Dont they say to Do the crime pay the price. Well isnt the price the jail sentence they get?? hmmmm
Bout freaking time....this pretty much gives states the same green light as well. Thank you SCOTUS.
Good news! The current Bolshevik government can now keep people locked up for an arbitrary amount of time if they deem you to be an "enemy of the people"!
Everyone sing along! "So comrades, come rally, and the last fight let us face, The Internationale, Unites the human race!"
This is the Bush Supreme Court, leaving it's legacy!
It's not the current government you have to worry about. Despite the far-right fear mongering Obama is NOT a socialist or communist. This is worrisome though. A future government decades from now could be, or the far-right could win the country back and start dismantling our civil rights, locking up anyone who protests too loudly. It's very dangerous. I think the far-right is a far more immediate threat (just look at all the comments supporting castration and death without due process), but either extreme is a threat and since history will go on far longer than any of ours lives it's important to protect the country from abuse of power.
This is a good idea. Why do we bother giving these people trials? We all know they are guilty. What if one of these people does something but the government does not have the evidence to convict. What if the person does not look right and they think he might commit a crime in the future? Not having committed a crime is not an excuse.
I just read over 150 posts, and this is the most stupid one I have read. Actually, I take that back, because I'm not really sure as to what in the world I just read.
I think it's a sarcastic comment about all the far-right people commenting attacking due process and promoting cruel and unusual punishments.
I think parents/kids should be locked up when they dress their child like a tramp then complain about the obvious outcome!!!