I have a freshly graduated 3L who is digesting the decision, but my early read is that whoever argued this for the sex-offenders and thought that a 10th Amendment argument was a winner is a fucking idiot. The justices specifically state that this decision has no hold over a due process claim (which would have been MY gut reaction Constitutional claim) for this decision.
Honestly? I don't really care if they're a danger to society. I don't even really care if they're a danger to me. The danger to society of this kind of a breakdown in our judicial system is the far greater injustice in my opinion. Unless they undergo some kind of breakdown, you gave them a sentence equal to their crime in a court of law. If they did have an additional break down, they should be treated through the courts to be declared incompetent and placed under some sort of supervision exactly as you or I would be. If there's something wrong with that process, fix the process. You don't get to pick and choose the people for whom you will deny due process under the law. *shrug* Justice is supposed to be blind, right?
Only we're letting people who benefit monetarily from having more prisoners decide who is and isn't "mentally incompetent." Which is pure bullshit.
The legislature has the job of passing laws and sentencing guidelines. The courts have further discretion over who should be imprisoned and for how long.
It is not the job of an extra-legal, extra-judicial prison team to circumvent the voters and the government by simply assigning people whatever sentences they want.
When I read about this, when Kagan compared it to contagious diseases, I instantly thought of Typhoid Mary. The idea that someone can be a danger to others. You're right in that it puts a premium on the safety of society over the individual rights of the person, effectively saying that some people have more rights than others.
But, while it feels wrong on some level, it is actually legitimate. If someone has been convicted with proof and they cannot be rehabilitated, then I am ok with them losing their rights. Harsh, I admit but I also think we're talking about a very small subset of society. I know it isn't a popular opinion, not even in those who wrote the opinion or argued for it but it is what I believe. But I don't believe the justice system is blind or very smart to begin with.
I think it's a very slippery slope, and I don't trust our government to control the descent.
I disagree that it's legitimate. I think it's fear talking, and fear shouldn't be the basis for sound and ethical judgments. I don't (necessarily) disagree with unrehabilitatable (?) convicts being given life sentences. But six days before the end of a sentence fully served, someone who is not a jury of peers it gets to be extended indefinitely without any significant due process? That's what's galling me... they served the sentence that a judge and jury decreed to be the correct punishment for the crime. In essence it's double jeaoprody and it's a wrongness that offends every atom of my being. Today it's pedophiles, obviously the lowest of the low in our society. What about next year when someone uses the precedent to extend it to murderers? Then drug dealers?
I feel completely helpless to do anything about it, but that doesn't mean I won't get outraged about it at least.
If someone has been convicted with proof that they can't be rehabilitated, then it is the job of the legislatures and the courts to sentence them properly.
Comments 8
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
The legislature has the job of passing laws and sentencing guidelines. The courts have further discretion over who should be imprisoned and for how long.
It is not the job of an extra-legal, extra-judicial prison team to circumvent the voters and the government by simply assigning people whatever sentences they want.
Reply
But, while it feels wrong on some level, it is actually legitimate. If someone has been convicted with proof and they cannot be rehabilitated, then I am ok with them losing their rights. Harsh, I admit but I also think we're talking about a very small subset of society. I know it isn't a popular opinion, not even in those who wrote the opinion or argued for it but it is what I believe. But I don't believe the justice system is blind or very smart to begin with.
Reply
I disagree that it's legitimate. I think it's fear talking, and fear shouldn't be the basis for sound and ethical judgments. I don't (necessarily) disagree with unrehabilitatable (?) convicts being given life sentences. But six days before the end of a sentence fully served, someone who is not a jury of peers it gets to be extended indefinitely without any significant due process? That's what's galling me... they served the sentence that a judge and jury decreed to be the correct punishment for the crime. In essence it's double jeaoprody and it's a wrongness that offends every atom of my being. Today it's pedophiles, obviously the lowest of the low in our society. What about next year when someone uses the precedent to extend it to murderers? Then drug dealers?
I feel completely helpless to do anything about it, but that doesn't mean I won't get outraged about it at least.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment