Reason – Pre-Crime Detention Based on Enumerated (Yet Curiously Unspecified) Powers:
Today the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law that allows indefinite civil commitment of federal prisoners who have completed their sentences but are deemed “sexually dangerous.” The Court, which in 1997 rejected a challenge to a similar Kansas law based on the Double Jeopardy, Due Process, and Ex Post Facto Clauses, did not deal with the usual constitutional objections in this case. Instead it addressed the question of whether the federal government, as opposed to the states, is authorized to detain people based on sex crimes they might commit in the future. The seven-justice majority concluded that it is, finding that civil commitment of “sexually dangerous” prisoners is a “necessary and proper” means of “carrying into execution” the federal government’s enumerated powers. Yet the majority opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer never identifies the powers that provide the authority for this law. The omission is telling, especially since all nine justices agree that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not give Congress any independent powers.
So now discretionary lengthening of sentences beyond the due process mechanisms of a judge and jury is the law of the land. Combine this with privatized prisons and you’ve got an economic incentive for chattel slavery.
Good on Thomas and Scalia for voting against this. Bad on the other justices for voting in favor, and on George Bush for signing the law.
RSS Posts Feed
Wow! For once in my life (never thought it’d happen) I’m actually in agreement with Scalia AND Thomas!
Just from your brief snippet/posting I’m presuming this is a very narrow decision focused upon the validity of a law (you mention Bush signing it). In other words, it doesn’t address the larger issue of what our penal system (hehe, he said “penal”
) is supposed to do.
I can’t help but think the law that was signed shifts the direction of our punishments from rehabilitation (our goal to returning reformed criminals to society) to putting someone in an oubliette (lock them up and throw away the key).
*sigh*
Gives everyone yet another reason to NEVER be accused and/or convicted of any type of sex crime.
First they came for the sex perverts and I said nothing because I wasn’t a sex pervernt. Etc. Scary stuff.
“Oubliette.” Wow. Had to look that one up. Thanks.
Hehehe….and I’ve now used up my available toilet paper word for the day.
Glad you enjoyed it!
We can only hope that a wise and just Executive will not abuse this power.
Oh yeah, did you see how psychiatrists are working on revising the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to include new disorders such as “‘oppositional defiant disorder’, which includes people who have a pattern of ‘negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures’?”
What could go wrong?
http://www.naturalnews.com/028803_psychiatry_disease.html
.-= Mike´s last blog ..Policing for Profit – The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture =-.
This looks super extra draconian when you consider cases like the 17-year old boy busted for porn. He gets listed as a sex offender just like if he was a 57-year old trafficking in kiddie pics. I’m a father of 3 girls whom I love very much and want to protect. But sheesh. There’s got to be some way to distinguish between the really dangerous pervs and an errant kid. Does he get locked up forever for doing what all teenage boys do, lookin at boobs? I’m pretty conservative but I have to say our CJ system is a mess when it comes to stuff like this. It costs us a lot to keep people locked up, including the ones who aren’t really dangerous. There has to be a better way to balance our safety with reasonable distinctions.
.-= Christopher Range´s last blog ..Send Chris Range to Shevacon =-.
I hate to be a Henny Penny but SCOTUS decisions often run the risk of expanded interpretation both in the lower courts and in the legislature. We’ve already neutered many constitutional restraints by rulings which by themselves may have seemed like minor accomodations but in the long run became the basis for big overreaches. Jefferson bemoaned Marbury vs. Madison which in 1803 he felt made the constitution a “thing of wax” by making it solely subject to interpretation by unelected justices. It seems that even if the congress made the rare move of trying to curb federal power through legislation that SCOTUS can always let the camel’s nose back under the tent.
.-= Christopher Range´s last blog ..Send Chris Range to Shevacon =-.