Supreme Court Ruling

[Hescominsoon]

Couple of thoughts here for everyone who has posted in this thread. I'm going to be blunt and shoot from the hip on this one:

1) You've been trolled. No offense to the O.P., but he tossed this bone in here and hasn't said jack all since. Waiting for all the dogs to come after the bone and start tearing each other to bits. This is a discussion forum, and yet the O.P. has not replied to this thread. I'm calling him out on that one. If I were a moderator, which I'm not, I'd be seriously looking into his post history to see if he does this a lot, although he could also genuinely be a concerned American trying to raise awareness of the issue.


2)

I would challenge that thinking. I spent my mid-late teen years in a small town outside Edmonton, AB. Now, I had at the time a gifting (the gift of foolishness?) that caused me to often come into contact with this sort of thing, but, of the fifteen teenage girls that I was friends with in that town, thirteen of them had been raped by family members before they were twelve. I do not say this lightly.

Pedophiles are more than just a "threat." Not if you are a young woman.

The other two (the non-raped girls) were cousins of mine. I am extremely blessed with a very thoroughly Christian family, where it didn't happen. As far as I could tell at a young age, it might happen in 10% of unsaved families. That's probably WAAAAY over the top to say, but where I was living, it sure felt like it.

I do feel that it is higher in non-religious families than religious ones, but I don't have (nor care to go looking for) stats on this.

These attacks are covered up by families through fear, be it fear of the family member, fear of the fallout if it comes out, fear of society's judgment, or sheer stupid hope that it just goes away.

The real threat of the pedophile, I'd say, isn't the ones on TV -- it's the ones in our homes, in our families.

Nowadays, I'm in much healthier circles. I know about 4 or 5 women in these healthier circles who were raped before they were 12. Usually this causes long-term psychological problems that they have to fight their whole lives. Go figure.


3) Comparing pastors to pedophiles is like comparing apples to water dogwood. Just saying.

I never said pedos aren't a threat..but the threat has been totally overblown. Rulings like this play on that fear and allow the continued usurping of our Constitution.

 

[Durruck]

Great post, Durruck, thanks.

Let's approach it from another angle though. I think we're assuming that we've had these freedoms all along, and we haven't. It's only been in the last 230 years (and only in select countries, probably thanks to the Pilgrims), perhaps a bit longer, that a large society has been free to profess their Christian faith.

I know. But our government was established with the freedom of speech, freedom of religious choice. Even if the founding fathers of the US had been Swahili-speaking Chinese Muslims, they still put it in that we have the right to express our beliefs. My Bible (the word of God) tells me that homosexuality is wrong. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Lying is wrong. If I truly have the freedoms of speech and religious choice, I can openly state that lying, cheating, stealing, rape, murder, and homosexuality are sins.

Where I see this becoming a problem is that more things are starting to be classified as "hate speech" in other countries, and we tend to do a lot of the same things that those countries do. "Civilized" countries tend to follow similar ethical/moral/value trends. One of the links above was of a British pastor that was jailed because he said homosexuality was a sin. He was provoked into her mini-sermon by the gay & lesbian anti-hate-enforcement officer (or whatever they're called - I read the article several weeks ago and can't remember the specific title)

#3, I've seen this paranoia elsewhere, and I think we should refrain from it. Not only is it unhealthy, but it misguides us. We become fearful of something that never happened , and it takes over our thoughts, and creates an unwarranted bias against other people who think differently (I'm thinking partly of the Tea Party movement and the Michigan Hutaree militia, among others).

I'm curious, how is the Tea Party Movement pushing unwarrented agendas? I tend to agree with many of their movement objectives. In many areas, there is no "conservative" option on the ballot - the GOP nominee is center, at best; The independents are truly left-wing, and the Liberals are nearly socialist. I don't want a lukewarm candidate. I want someone that will stand up and fight for what the true conservatives value. If there are more of us than them, we'll win the vote. If not, the centerist/leftist/ultra-leftist will win.

Couple of thoughts here for everyone who has posted in this thread. I'm going to be blunt and shoot from the hip on this one:

1) You've been trolled.

Yeh, I know. I noticed a few days ago. The OP is not typically someone that posts in our forums, but also posted a very similar thread over in the SoE/SOE boards. I haven't looked into his post history yet.

2) I would challenge that thinking. I spent my mid-late teen years in a small town outside Edmonton, AB. Now, I had at the time a gifting (the gift of foolishness?) that caused me to often come into contact with this sort of thing, but, of the fifteen teenage girls that I was friends with in that town, thirteen of them had been raped by family members before they were twelve. I do not say this lightly.

Pedophiles are more than just a "threat." Not if you are a young woman.
(snip)
The real threat of the pedophile, I'd say, isn't the ones on TV -- it's the ones in our homes, in our families.

While unfortunate and disgusting, that statistic is not unusual - from the standpoint of who the criminal was. Statistics show that most women that are raped are raped by family members are very young ages.

3) Comparing pastors to pedophiles is like comparing apples to water dogwood. Just saying.

I was never trying to say that pastors would be the next people jailed indefinitely; rather that breaking our own laws against one group of people is a nasty way to get stuff started. However, if we're willing to ignore rights of any group of people, it is not such a stretch that we would be willing to do it again.

Nice post Bowser. You made some great points.

Durruck - preaching the gospel/spreading the word and making hateful remarks are very different. When I say this I have the Southern Baptist Association in mind. Picketing homosexual events with signs saying "God Hates Fags" isn't exactly spreading the word effectively. They actually do these things (i.e. persecute people) in the name of God, which sadly, to be honest, kind of makes me embarrassed to be a Christian. I am not saying that all talks about homosexuality are inherently derogatory or anything of the sort, but they can easily devolve into such talks.

But that isn't what happened in England. Besides, it's the truth. Sinners (ie, everyone) that does not confess with his mouth and believe in his heart, and follow with his life that Jesus is Messiah is condemned. While I may not agree with their approach to spreading that message, it does not make it any less true.

I am aware and I acknowledge that the Bible categorizes homosexuals as sinners because of the way their lives are lived. However, that sin is no greater or less than the sin the rest of the world partakes in. So what's the big deal? Everyone everywhere choses to sin - daily.

True. They are only marked among the condemned because of their unrepentant behavior and hearts. We're all wicked people, I don't deny it. I'm not even sure why Paul called himself the chief of sinners when clearly, I've got him beat. But the point is that I have admitted that I cannot save myself, that only Jesus is the Way, etc, etc.

Back on topic - I honestly think its a vast leap from child molesters to Christians. Too big. Even if the population of Christians isn't 79% of the US population (which I admit is quite high), we are still the most populous of any group.

And as long as the moral majority keep their mouth shut, we get weaker every time something like this happens and we do not act. I'm not saying it will be today, but if we are unwilling to stand for our faith, it could easily be in our lifetimes that Christianity becomes a dead religion in our culture.

 

[Angus_Og]

here are my two cents and if it gets me in trouble so be it, i am confident in my faith and where i stand.

just because you are christian does not mean you are a conservative. just because you are liberal does not mean you are against all things christian. just because you are a homosexual does not mean you can not get into heaven. for those that believe God hates homosexuals, reread your bible.

i am straight as straight comes. homosexuality is a sin, but does not mean you can't be my friend. it is not the end all be all. i do not believe homosexual couples should be married in the church, it is after all a sin, but i do believe the government should recognize them. they are after all Gods children and should be treated as such.

some people that are convicted of being a pedophile are not. there are certain circumstances that need to be considered. as for being allowed to be set free after their sentence, it depends on if they are rehabilitated. and that should be for most crimes.

some of the greatest sins have been committed by christians in the name of God. remember the crusades? we have to remember to follow Gods word the best we can. sin can, and will, creep into our lives daily. treat people as you want to be treated. just because you are christian gives you no right to crucify someone for their beliefs. our actions should guide others and our words should convert non-believers.

i will now get off my soap box since i have deleted half of the post cause i was rambling. just remember one thing; do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

God watch over me and guide me on my journey. may others see you in my actions and words.

 

[Durruck]

I hope you weren't upset by my statement about the Tea party, et al. I don't think that Christians have to vote any certain way, nor does a certain set of political beliefs include you as a Christian.

I was just saying that I tend to fall in line with the far more conservative line. I hope I made my position clear that there is no sin greater than another; that is, homosexuality is no different than any other sin. It's how we address the sins in our lives that matter.

While I agree that homosexuals are just as human and deserve their rights and dignity as well, I disagree that government should allow them to marry - nor do I think that divorce or bankruptcy should be so easy, welfare should not look more appealing than getting a job just because you're lazy. There are just some actions that by condoning them, it makes them seem commonplace, acceptable, or even normal. There should be a certain level of accountability for civic responsibilities and legal liabilities.

But these are matters of opinion and I can appreciate that you may believe differently than I do.

 

[Angus_Og]

i wasn't upset. i know you are more conservative then i am, and i appreciate the viewpoint. i have always enjoyed our talks.

 

[ursen]

Okee Dokee as originator of this post I take some exception to being called a troll. Being made aware of potential problems in our government and life always causes a multiplicity of view points. Some of the posters have good points, being aware of the relevance of the Adam Walsh act is just such a viewpoint. One item that is being lost in the shuffle is due to a lot of media misinformation. Sex offender does NOT equal pedophile. And the current crop of registration laws is quite effective, a violation can easily cause a new prison sentence. And several have pointed out the obvious, it is not all about sex offenders, it is about a basic shift in how the bench interprets laws, with the long term effects that brings.

 

[[7F]LarryBoy]

Neirai said that you MAY be a troll, or that you MAY be a concerned citizen trying to raise awareness. It appear that the latter is the case.

I too feel that we must remain vigilant against attacks against our base human rights, however small they may seem. Liberties will not be lost in one fell swoop (not in our democratic nations, in any case), but via thousands of tiny cuts.

 

[[7F]Steel]

I too feel that we must remain vigilant against attacks against our base human rights, however small they may seem. Liberties will not be lost in one fell swoop (not in our democratic nations, in any case), but via thousands of tiny cuts.

A few of the posters here have suggested the situation be ignored and expressed disdain about the idea that Christians could ever be condemned by such laws in the future. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but ignorance is not bliss. You can believe in God all you want, but it will not save you from bureaucracy.

As LarryBoy pointed out, you will not tomorrow find yourself being persecuted because of your religious choice, or your preaching. However, if you continue to blindly and give unopposed voice to the trends in the US government, you will find yourself losing freedoms over time. More and more power has been stripped from citizens to be taken by the Federal government, and if you don't believe that, than you are deluding yourself.

Has this trend stopped? No, has this trend continued? Yes. See where this is going? Next you are going to tell me its ok for the feds to limit childrens online game time and monitor all network traffic... in the interest of my safety from terrorists!!! Screw it, I will just move to China, at least they admit it there.

Nefew/Stiel/Nodlehs

 

[Angus_Og]

again i will insert foot into mouth and smile about it.

to hijack this thread once more, and i am sorry for doing it, if you do not like the laws then vote for someone new. i understand that the current topic, sex offenders, is based on a supreme court ruling and that they are appointed and not voted for. guess who appoints them. correct, people you voted in to office.

being someone that has political viewpoints like a blind man playing darts i do my best with what there is out there to vote for. if you say the current president is worse then the last, i saw ha. this one has not done eight years yet so i can not make a decision.

now to try and get myself back on topic.

"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."

here is a more in depth article on this issue: NY Times. Here are parts of both assents:

Congress has the undoubted powers, Justice Breyer said, to enact criminal laws in furtherance of its enumerated powers and to create a prison system to punish people who violate those laws, though neither power is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. “The civil commitment statute before us represents a modest addition,” he added, comparing it to medical quarantine.

Justice Breyer took pains to make clear that the court was not ruling on the separate question of whether such confinement violated the Constitution’s due process clause.

Two justices, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy, voted to uphold the law but did not adopt Justice Breyer’s general approach.

In his concurrence, Justice Alito said he was concerned about both “the breadth of the court’s language” and “the ambiguity of the standard that the court applies.”

But he said the civil confinement law passed constitutional muster. “Just as it is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the apprehension of escaped federal prisoners,” he wrote, “it is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the civil commitment of dangerous federal prisoners who would otherwise escape civil commitment as a result of federal imprisonment.”

“This is not a case in which it is merely possible for a court to think of a rational basis on which Congress might have perceived an attenuated link between the powers underlying the federal criminal statutes and the challenged federal criminal provision,” Justice Alito added, saying there was in this case at least “a substantial link.”

Here is part of the dissent:

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented in the case, United States v. Comstock, No. 08-1224.

“The fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime — sex-related or otherwise — does not provide the government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person,” Justice Thomas wrote.

here is my understand from reading the article. it concerns, but is not limited to, an old sex offender law. it sounds like the lawyer fought the right for the government to create/enforce the law not the rulings of the judge that kept these prisoners in jail.

the one prisoner they talk about is a guy that received child pornography. he got a 37 month sentence and then was told 6 days before he was to be released that he was still a sexually dangerous person and would remain in jail. now maybe they reduced the charge, but i still don't see how a judge can state he is still dangerous. i think the lawyer made a mistake and attacked the wrong law. he should of went after the criteria that was used to extend this guys sentence.

 

[Durruck]

Thanks for finding info on the specific case that lead to the article. Still doesn't change my view that the government's decision to alter the sentence after it had been passed down is wrong.

Interesting point about the lawyer attacking the wrong thing. They generally just attack whatever is weakest and gives them the best chance of winning. I would have guessed the double indemnity and due process clauses would have been enough to overturn the sentence extension.

to hijack this thread once more, and i am sorry for doing it, if you do not like the laws then vote for someone new. i understand that the current topic, sex offenders, is based on a supreme court ruling and that they are appointed and not voted for. guess who appoints them. correct, people you voted in to office.

Nuh-uh... not me. I voted for the other candidate

In all seriousness, you are absolutely correct. We need to do the best we can to research our candidates and vote for the one that is most likely going to follow our moral beliefs. But most importantly, we have to vote. We should be writing letters to our representatives to let them know how we feel on various pieces of legislation on the floor. How else are they supposed to know what we support?

 

[Elwood]

In Canada there is a due process for designating an person who has been convicted and sentenced as a "Dangerous Offender." While the following quote is from Wikipedia, it seemed like the most concise description that I could find:

In Canadian criminal law, a convicted person who is designated a dangerous offender may be subjected to an indeterminate prison sentence, whether or not the crime carries a life sentence, but this does not apply to convictions of first degree murder, second degree murder, high treason, and treason. The purpose of the legislation is to detain offenders who are deemed too dangerous to be released into society because of their violent tendencies, but whose sentences would not necessarily keep them incarcerated under other legislation, such as the Correctional and Conditional Release Act. Under subsection 761(1) of the Criminal Code, the National Parole Board is required to review the case of an offender with a dangerous offender label after seven years, and parole may be granted as circumstances warrant, but the offender would remain under supervision indefinitely. After the initial review, the Parole Board must conduct subsequent reviews every two years. According to Corrections Canada, on average 24 dangerous offenders are admitted to the Canadian prison system each year. Paul Bernardo is one well-known dangerous offender. Canadian courts also have the option of designating convicts "long term offenders". A hearing is held after sentencing, and, if a judge rules the accused is likely to re-offend after release, a 10-year period of community supervision is required after the sentence is completed.

The dangerous offender provisions have been found constitutional: "The individual, on a finding of guilty, is being sentenced for the 'serious personal injury offense' for which he was convicted, albeit in a different way than would ordinarily be done. He is not being punished for what he might do. The punishment flows from the actual commission of a specific offense."

There is provision and due process by which someone so designated can be released from prison but the sentence can become indefinite and leave the offender needing to bring proof of change.

Just wanted to bring another perspective to the original discussion.