- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 58,772,784
Another 837,000 Americans filed for first-time unemployment benefits last week, on a seasonally adjusted basis. Thaâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…VI
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 58,772,784
The EU has launched legal proceedings against the UK after it failed to withdraw legislation that would breach theâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…CI
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 58,772,784
Japan's Tokyo Stock Exchange halted all trading because of a technical glitch. It's not clear when the exchange wilâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…h9
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 58,772,784
Brad Parscale has stepped down from his role as a senior adviser to President Trump's campaign, two sources close tâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…PX
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 58,772,784
American Airlines says it's poised to furlough 19,000 workers starting tomorrow. But, the airline says it's ready tâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…GA
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 58,772,784
Initial reports suggest three rockets struck a base where US troops are located in Iraq, a US defense official saysâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…Cu
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 58,772,784
The Senate has approved a stopgap spending bill in order to avert a government shutdown just hours before funding wâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…eB
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
The pandemic has put 500,000 more girls at risk of being forced into child marriage this year, reversing 25 years oâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…9r
A rare blue moon will light up the night sky on Halloween.
While the moon won't actually look blue, the second fulâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…sK
Children can spread coronavirus among themselves efficiently, but young adults are the primary source of coronaviruâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…h2
📩 Sign up to get the facts on coronavirus delivered to your inbox dailcnn.it/36AjEgbc8b
Here's everythintwitter.com/i/web/status/1…cKuzR
A giant robot resembling the 1970s anime figure Gundam has been tested in Yokohama, Japan.
The robot stands at neâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…vy
I cannot believe the amount of ignorance here.
Keeping someone beyond their sentence is a far bigger issue than the offenders themselves. That's why a sentence is there. When we start ignoring sentences that are put in place by our courts and judges then who DO we listen to? I think it's absolutely insane to even suggest that keeping anyone beyond their sentence is acceptable.
This is terrifying. Look, if the courts want life sentences, death sentences, castration or public flogging, then change the sentencing guidelines accordingly. But don't keep people beyond their original sentence. It makes no sense. I could just as easily argue that violent offenders stay locked up forever.
Everyone has made valid points so lets cut this to 3 things.
1. To hold someone longer than the agreed term is a sort of "breech of contract" and should be called what it is, kidnapping.
2. Someone who violates our children does deserve to loose all of their civil rights for ever how long. Possibly longer than the current sentences pending serverity.
3. IF YOU CHOOSE TO BREAK THE THE LAW, THEN YOU ALSO CHOOSE TO EXCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES. However, there are alot of cases where the offender either was falsely accused or unknowingly broke the law.
I am truly scared. I didn’t know there were that many self righteous rednecks out there.
If you want them to get out, let them come stay at your house when they do.
Sorry, I live too close to a school. It'd be a crime for them to be there. Oh, heard about how some states laws are so tough that offenders basically have to live under overpasses cause everywhere else is 'too close' to a church or school or whatever... Another great example of the great nation America has become
I have. Its called forgiveness. and everyone can change so everyone desreves a 2nd chance.
Its interesting to me how many people on here are advocating for this ruling. While I don't disagree that the convicted should have longer sentences when neccesary. To hold them past their date, goes against what this country was founded on. It clearly violates our bill of rights for a right trial.
Everyone here can argue to try and say what if its your kids that get violated next. But unless you have some magical survey that says 100% of the released do it again, there's no reason to lock them up indefinitely. If there is reason that they need to, in extreme cases, then get a psych test and put them in front of a judge again.
Otherwise, what the hell do we have a trial system for? If they can say, "yeah you're guilty so we're going to lock you up, and you're not getting out until we tell you" What kind of precident does that set?
Brett, read the decision, not just the artice. What you're proposing is pretty much exactly what it says.
How do you castrate women?
Here here! ... Side-note: very top of comments: conversation=hilarious.
Name – "Yeah, keep them, until they regain their virginity, if that ever going to happen"
Guy – "Are you retarded? you can't regain your virginity. It's impossible."
I think that was his/her point...
I feel if a defensless child is hurt by a predator that predator should be locked up and the key thrown away....if further down the road they are found not guilty...due to DNA, or what not....they can be released...U don't want to murder someone who is not deserving....but I don't believe anyone who victimizes little children should be set free into society
People you are not thinking clearly and only thinking of pedophiles only. While that may seem to be the case at the moment this ruling isn't solely for just that crime it is a broad statement and this new ruling can apply to any crime be it petty burglary. It can be applied to those that look like they may commit a crime and just that. We are on a spiral downfall this has been happening for some time.
A bar brawl participant who finishes his sentence is then kept in prison because somebody "thinks" he might assault someone again?
If you want to keep them in jail forever, change the sentencing guidelines. But to hold anyone beyond the time appointed during sentencing does not seem fair.
As a victim of childhood molestation, I agree that some pedophiles NEED to stay longer than the maximum sentences. Some are incurable, and if, when the time comes to let them out the state KNOWS they will be a repeat offender, it is their RESPONSIBILITY to protect us. I don't care if it's in prison, or in a special facility. I was taken advantage of by a repeat offender whom should have NEVER been on the streets. As far as I'm concerned, the constant worry about getting killed by the other prisioners is EXACTLY what they deserve.
Sorry about your experience. Just move on and try to overcome your bitterness. It might be doing more harm to you than the abuse itself.
BP aka the oil spill needs to be in this category as well, they are a threat to us and our environment!
A Victim, how does the state KNOW they will be a repeat offender? Can the state-paid psychiatrists see the future? Can they say with 100% certainty that someone will be a repeat offender?
No. The end.