The Supreme Court rules that “sexually dangerous” inmates can be held even after their prison term ends

  Earlier today the Supreme Court ruled that sexually dangerous inmates can be held even after their prison terms ended. Needless to say, I find this to be a dangerous ruling that sets a precedent that could lead to future expansion of this ruling.

  The challenge was made by four men whose sentences expired two years ago but are still being held in prison under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act signed by President Bush in 2006. In an interesting turn of events, it was Elena Kagan– nominated by Barack Obama to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court– who argued successfully for the government in this case; her argument being that this was no different than holding prisoners indefinitely who have highly contagious diseases.

Would anybody say that the federal government would not have Article I power to effect that kind of public safety measure? And the exact same thing is true here. This is exactly what Congress is doing here

  The Supreme Court ruling was 7-2, with Justices Thomas and Scalia dissenting, in favor of  the indefinite detentions of these men. While I understand that these men may still be dangerous and that these men are child molesters who probably should have been sentenced to much longer prison terms in the first place, I find it disturbing that American citizens can serve the length of their prison terms and be denied release upon completion of those sentences.

  I fully understand that my position on this issue may seem hypocritical considering I hold the opposite position when it comes to the detention of the terror suspects that are being held at GITMO indefinitely, but I do see a major difference in these two scenarios. With the GITMO detainees we have people who are not United States citizens, who were captured on the battlefield fighting against the United States, and in my opinion are not to be given protections under the United States constitution, while in this case we have American citizens who have completed their sentences only to be told that they have not fully paid their debt to society.

  Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer offered the following opinion:

The statute 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 but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others

we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact (this law)

  Don’t get me wrong, I find what these four men did to be among the most vile crimes that can be perpetrated, to hurt an innocent child is deplorable, but it seems like  this is an issue of the lower courts being too lenient in their original sentencing, does that give the federal government the right to step in and detain these people after their sentence has been served? These inmates served the sentence that they were given, and having served that sentence it seems to me that they have done the time that was required by them according to the court  and as such they should be set free. If they are dangerous as is thought, perhaps wearing an ankle bracelet and being closely monitored after their release would be the proper way to “keep tabs” on them.

  This really presents a conundrum to me, while I do not feel sorry for these men– and while they probably should be in jail for 20 years– are they not entitled to regain their freedom if they finished the punishment that was levied upon them by the court they were tried in?.

  The problem rests in the lower courts that initially sentenced these men, not with the federal justice system. But here we have the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government can keep these men in jail for as long as they wish. While I feel that these men probably did not serve enough time, I find it disturbing that the original sentence carries no weight any more.

  Here is what Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent:

Nothing in the Constitution “expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the federal government with such a power

   That is what is truly at issue here, where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to extend the sentence of a person after that person has served the sentence he was ordered to serve?

  It is interesting– and more than a little scary– that for the most part the liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices seem to be on the same page on this issue.

  Where does the Supreme Court go from here? Will it be perfectly acceptable for the federal government to detain ANY prisoners that they deem as dangerous after they have served their sentences? And who determines when these people will actually be let out of jail? What constitutes a dangerous criminal, could speaking out against the government the considered dangerous activity at some point in the future?

  Again, I can’t say it loudly enough, I am not defending these men or the crimes they committed. The system is broken, but does that mean that the penal code now means nothing? The  system needs to be fixed at the lower levels to ensure that these men serve the proper amount of time in the first place. Judges that initially gave these men light prison terms need to be held accountable, but the proper course of action would be to rehabilitate the system where the original errors occurred, not have the federal government come in and hold prisoners indefinitely once their prison terms expired. If the judges were following guidelines and those guidelines are too weak, they need to be strengthened, if the sentencing guidelines were not followed than the judges should be held accountable.

  This ruling may be well intentioned, and in the end the people are probably better protected with these degenerates locked safely away, but I can’t help but feeling as if a Pandora’s Box has been opened that could lead to the indefinite imprisonment of lesser criminals somewhere down the line.

  America is a nation of laws, these men were tried under the law, found guilty, and sentenced. Upon the completion of their punishment they were told that the law they were tried under wasn’t strict enough and that they must now remain in jail. I am not advocating the release of child predators, I am simply stating that the problem here lies in the original sentence and the lower courts, and should be addressed there, not by granting the federal government the authority to hold prisoners indefinitely.

  Setting aside the seriousness of their crimes– and I know that is hard to do– does anyone else have a problem with this based on constitutional theory?