Supreme Court rules sex offenders detainable after terms end

Monday, May 17th, 2010 By

"Equal justice under law" is the message that greets visitors to the Supreme Court building. Is their ruling in U.S. v. Comstock regarding sex offenders just?

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of protecting children from sex offenders with their U.S. v. Comstock decision. (Photo: Flickr)

In a ruling on U.S. v. Comstock, the Supreme Court has made it possible for federal officials to hold prison inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their sentences are complete. The Associated Press indicates that this officially reverses a lower court decision claiming that Congress had overstepped its bounds by allowing indefinite detention of sex offenders at risk to repeat. Funding for such incarceration will be difficult to come by, whether by increased taxes, federal subsidies or instant payday loans.

‘Necessary and proper,’ says Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

The Supreme Court rules on many of the weightiest issues facing America’s legal system. The safety and liberty of American citizens are frequently at stake, hence justices do not take their duties lightly. Sometimes their decisions run afoul of human decency (as in their recent ruling that animal cruelty “crush” videos may be protected by First Amendment rights), but thankfully there is still room in the hallowed chambers for protecting the helpless from being violated. In his majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Breyer wrote that the U.S. v. Comstock (08-1224) ruling 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 by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others.”

This protection is closely tied to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which former President George W. Bush signed into law in 2006. The Walsh Act opened the door for “civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates,” reports the AP. In addition, the Walsh Act established the national sex offender registry, increased punishment for certain federal crimes against children and took a stronger stance against child pornography.

Take that, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

According to Justice Breyer’s majority opinion summary, the Supreme Court “concludes that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact.” The opposition, led by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, opined that because such a federal power is not specifically listed in the Constitution, Congress shouldn’t have the right to such dramatic action. One wonders if the founding fathers could have conceived of all the ways the Constitution would come to be tested as society has changed. If the Constitution is indeed a “living document,” then perhaps static fundamentalist thinking within the Supreme Court does more harm than good.

(Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootbearwdc/ / CC BY 2.0)

Related Video:

Previous Article

« Pesticides associated with ADHD cases in kids

A joint University of Montreal/Harvard University study suggests there may be a connection between certain pesticides and child ADHD. READ ON... A man holding produce against the wall of an art museum by wedging it between his body and the wall. Are pesticides and ADHD to blame here?
Next Article

GM posts first profits in more than two years »

For the first time in almost three years, GM has posted a profit. The company had experienced heavy losses for almost two years. READ ON... The General Motors Building

If you found this article helpful, share it with a friend!

  • bb

    This Supreme Court decision is in violation of the Constitution. This is a violation of an offender's Constitutional rights because it's tantamount to double jeopardy. Americans are protected from double jeopardy in our Bill of Rights. If a person is still a danger to society after serving his or her time in prison, that 'danger' can and should only be able to be PROVEN by some sort of offense committed while in prison. The person should be tried for the additional offense OR RELEASED at the end of their sentence – not just kept in jail at a judge's or warden's whim. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. We are a coutry run by the RULE OF LAW. The minute the country is run by the OPINION of a gatekeeper, ALL OF US ARE SUBJECT TO BEING HELD AGAINST OUR WILL AS A POSSIBLE THREAT TO THE PERSONAL AGENDA of the GATEKEEPER nearest US. WHO DO THOSE PEOPLE (Supreme Court justices) THINK THEY ARE? THE SUPREME COURT HAS GONE OUTSIDE THE LAW IN THIS DECISION. Granted: Child molesters are an unpopular segment of society. So emotions can get in the way of seeing the long term effect of the precedent that the Supreme Court is setting. Here is the precedent: The Supreme Court is telling the

    American people that personal OPINION carries more power than written LAW. They are WRONG in doing this. VERY WRONG. Example of how wrong: YOU'VE accidently run over someone in your car and are convicted of manslaughter and put in prison. For PERSONAL REASONS, the warden says you are not a good prisoner. He says you are a 'danger' to society and wants to keep you in prison beyond your prison term. You object and it goes to the court. The warden lies and because of the precedent set forth by the decision in this article (opinion over law), YOU are kept in prison longer than your term. We are a country governed by the RULE OF LAW, not the rule of OPINION – because opinions vary from person to person and can be influenced by their OWN AGENDA. OF COURSE I don't WANT sexual predators to repeat their violence. BUT THIS IS THE WRONG WAY TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM. If offenders need to be off the streets, the LAW should be changed that decides the extent of their incarceration. Or probation after completion of time served needs to be added as part of the sentence. Ruling contrary to the Constitutional rights of any individual is simply not the way to address the problem. BTW, I am not a felon and I am not supporting sexual predation. Quite the contrary. I, myself, have been the victim of a violent sex crime. But in deference to the Constitutional rights of the perpetrator of the crime against me, I would not want him to be forced to stay in prison longer than the sentence given him at trial, simply because it was the OPINION of SOMEONE that he MIGHT do it again. A worst case senerio would be that that SOMEONE simply didn't want to let him out of prison, for that SOMEONE'S own private reasons and lied about the 'danger' to society to keep him in prison. We need to protect ourselves from worst case senerios by not allowing precedents such as the one reported in this article. LEGISLATURES: if repeat offender child molestation is a known problem – SOLVE IT! It's YOUR job, not the courts' job to provide laws that keep them off the streets. SUPREME COURT: BACK OFF and do your own job!

  • Sarah Carter

    What about innocent people falsely accused of this crime and are unable to prove their innocence because of a mentally derranged child or women? When are the courts going to accept that women and chidren lie. What is an innocent person to do when their lawyer does not do their job in protecting and defending innocent people? When is there ever going to be a sure proof way to prove someone's innocence? A CommonWealth Attorney kept prosecuting my son for a crime that never happened and had medisal proof that the crime never happened. What are people to do? Why is so easy to accuse someone of a crime?

    • http://personalmoneynetwork.com/ Steven Tarlow

      You make a great point, Sarah. The burden of proof should fall squarely on the shoulders of the accuser. If there’s strong proof that someone is innocent, that should mean something – even if they can’t afford the best representation.