i have no problem with keeping someone who has already seriously harmed a child in prison for life without chance of parole -- on a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. but, keeping someone confined, in effect, for life on a preponderance of the evidence standard -- for a crime they might commit in the future is very troubling to me.

see: Doubts Rise as States Hold Sex Offenders After Prison

i believe that many people are helped by psychotherapy. but, i also believe that many people are helped by placebo, halo effect, laying on of hands, and voodoo witch doctoring. that doesn't mean, however, that the latter are science-based modalities of therapeusis.

there is no scientific basis, so far as i am aware, in believing that a psychologist/psychiatrist is any better at predicting the future than a storefront fortune teller.

the Supreme Court's prior razor-thin 5-4 decision notwithstanding, is civil commit for prospective crimes consistent with established principles of due process?

You bet. The alternative is the death penalty which solves the problem! Any good psychologist will tell you (as will many of the perpetrators) there is no “cure”. These people are dangerous to children and will be for their entire lives. To EVER let them out is to put children at risk.

Im not sure what you mean about crimes they might commit. From what I gather from the article, these are convicted rapists and child molesters that are being released into what amounts to a specially tailored psychiatric ward instead of back out into the general population.

Personally I believe they should be castrated and tied with a rope to a bumper then strung around on a bumpy dirt road for a few hours then slowly dragged across hot coals face side down spit on then buried alive in an unmarked grave in the middle of no were.

In more realistic terms the death penalty would be a good alternative than giving them a free place to live with cable and all.

You have a very good point. It is unconstitutional to punish someone for a crime that they might commit. So the experts might agree that sex offenders may never be cured. Given that not all sex offenders are violent or as prolific as John Geoghan, it might be considered cruel and unusual punishment to hand out a life sentence for 1 offense. And if society continues to push for draconian laws on this matter, a child molestor who's committed 1 offense or is merely fantasizing about the crime beforehand might be less likely to seek help for his problems.

A better idea would be for society to take reasonable steps to keep the offenders away from children. For example, sex offenders could be given jobs in construction or in a factory. And they could wear electronic bracelets so that they can be tracked and kept a safe distance from schools.

But above all, sex offenders who have done their time in jail need the opportunity to find a spouse and work towards directing their sexual desires to other adults. I haven't seen any proof that a person is born as a child molestor, so rehabilitation should be possible. I think part of the reason that the cure rate among sex offenders is so low is because the Government spends too much money chasing down and locking up drug addicts. If the Government actually spent the Law Enforcement money more efficiently, society might actually be able to give rehabilitation a real chance at working.

is civil commit for prospective crimes consistent with established principles of due process?

First off, let's understand that these sex offenders have been convicted of crimes. They are not held on a "preponderance of evidence" or any lesser standard than anyone else convicted of a crime.

Does the "system" have a right to punish them in some way other than putting them in jail or putting them to death?

Let's see, for many other crimes, parole or probation is ordered. Is it fair that those on probation need to report to a probation officer regularly, prove that they have a job, keep away from certain situations (guns and felons), live in a certain place, be home by a set curfew time, and otherwise convince the court officer that they are a good member of society?

The way in which sex offenders is treated is similar to parole or probation. They are allowed to be free, but their freedoms are limited in certain ways. There is nothing unusual or cruel about this type of treatment. In fact, quite the opposite could be argued.

Note that probation in the United States began as a extra-judiciary procedure: judges did it without having the express authority to do so. When the National Probation Act was passed in 1925, probation officers were expected to enforce a moral code on the people they supervised. Now, however, they are more like social workers, providing employment and housing assistance instead of guiding them on how they should be living their lives. Today, the probation officer's primary job is risk management: keeping their charges from returning to a life of crime. This is called "progress".

This particular situation is confusing. The State cannot legally hold a prisoner after their sentence has expired. It seems that they are, however. What needs to be done is to revise the sentencing guidelines for these offenses and then abiding by those standards.

But they're already IN jail for committing a crime, not some imagined crime. This question is very confusing.

Endgame? Death Penalty for non-consensual sex with a child.

Amlord is logical to an extent, but only to an extent.

The problem I have with Amlord's comment is the fact that it only makes sense on paper and not in real everyday life. There's a big difference between telling someone to tell the nation and his new neighbours in particular that they are a sexual predator, or rather, that society has judged and labelled them as sexual predator, and that sexual predator actually doing it. Are they sick excrement? Yes. Are you going to trust that they will willingly inform their world that they're sick excrement? To people like new neigbors? Their new jobmates? It's no different from some guy going to some government building and asking: "Excuse me, I'm moving into a new neighborhood so could you please distribute leaflets throughout the area to inform all my new neighbors that I, a sex offender-child-rapist, is moving in to their area?". That would be tatamount to a great leap of faith, for myself anyways.
Amlord seems to have a great trust and faith in society. That society will and does act to defend everyone's safety and to keep everyone safe. I simply can't do that. To me, in our society, laws are relative. Like the proverbial jaywalking law. We've all done it ergo: we've all broken the law. But find me someone you know who has been ticketed or detained because of it. Remember, it's a law so it should be enforced and the offenders punished. Likely, maybe, one person in your life has had that law enforced. So it's obvious that laws are relative.
One easy way to look at it: (1) A violent offender is paroled and the terms of his parole state he/she cannot go within 100 yards of children. (2) A paroled inmate is not to own or posess any type of firearm. (3) A paroled drunk driver is ordered not to consume or posess any type of alcohol or drugs.
1. No parole officer or cop is with the parolee/offender 24-7. That law is (honestly and unbelievably) "on your honor". You have to trust that offender to obey that restriction...meaning you have to believe that offender has a tape measure with him at all times. Or every child in his city, as well as himself, will be given an ankle braclet-type monitor which will alert the authorities if he comes within one hundred yards of any child. "On your honor" rules don't make anyone safe but quite the opposite.
2. Over 200 hundred million guns in the USA. Are any made specially so the paroled offender's fingerprints will make the gun ineffective for the paroled offender? Will any of those gun dealers, including the illegal black-market gun dealers, know who the buyer is and in turn refuse to sell the paroled offender the gun? Will any of those gun dealers, including the illegal black-market gun dealers, know who the buyer is and then turn the paroled offender in to the police? If a paroled offender really wants a gun, will you truly put your faith in that piece of paper which says the offender must do the right thing and not get a gun?
3. Alcohol is everywhere. The only sure way, short of murder, to make someone unable to drink something is some parole officer being with the drunkard 24/7, which is not going to happen, or cram a tennis ball down his throat. But that may not even be a sure solution. http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/34/6/918
People should never put their trust, blind trust, in society. People should never think that society is going to protect them from anyone. Society takes things into hand after the offence is committed. Crime prevention is something which only exists in politician's or policemen's minds. It's a cliche they use to make others think they're serious about making society safer and are in fact making their society safer.

The Supreme Court's prior razor-thin 5-4 decision notwithstanding, is civil commit for prospective crimes consistent with established principles of due process?

Is it unconstitutional to involuntarily commit an individual if they are a harm to themselves or others? I would say not. In terms of Hendricks, the man admitted that he had no control over his actions... this makes him a threat to others and committment makes sense. It isn't like there isn't a review of these people. It isn't that a man is convicted of the crime, does his time and is automatically committed indefinitely afterwards.

You are correct. Anyone who believes the “state” or Federal Government is “protecting” them from all crime is seriously mistaken. That is why many of us out here are not and never will be in favor of gun control that strips us of our right to keep and bear arms for protection as well as sporting.

As in CA states have overcrowded prison systems and while we are told
“ only non-violent prisoners” will be released early or paroled the reality may be quite different.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...22/213147.shtml


The grim reality is that when prisons are crowded sentences for all criminals is less, including sex offenders and criminals are paroled earlier. In addition liberal judges, seeking to redress “social injustice” regularly pour the violent criminals back onto out streets.


Case #1: Polly Klaas of Petaluma, California, was abducted from her suburban home during a sleepover with two friends on October 1, 1993, and subsequently murdered. Her alleged assailant, Richard Allen Davis, had been sentenced to sixteen years in prison for kidnapping, but was released in June after serving only eight years of that sentence.

Case #2: Michael Jordan's father, James Jordan, was fatally shot in the chest on Interstate 95 in North Carolina on July 23, 1993. Charged with the murder were Larry Martin Demery and Daniel Andre Green. Demery had been charged in three previous cases involving theft, robbery, and forgery. He was awaiting trial for bashing a convenience-store clerk in the head with a cinder block during a robbery. Green had been paroled after serving two years of a six- year sentence for attempting to kill a man by smashing him in the head with an axe, leaving his victim in a coma for three months.

In America, the crime clock continues to click: one murder every 22 minutes, one rape every 5 minutes, one robbery every 49 seconds, and one burglary every 10 seconds. And the cost of crime continues to mount: $78 billion for the criminal justice system, $64 billion for private protection, $202 billion in loss of life and work, $120 billion in crimes against business, $60 billion in stolen goods and fraud, $40 billion from drug abuse, and $110 billion from drunk driving. When you add up all the costs, crime costs Americans a stunning $675 billion each year.

Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang compiled arrest records for males born and raised in Philadelphia (in 1945 and in 1958). He found that just 7 percent in each age group committed two-thirds of all violent crime. This included three-fourths of the rapes and robberies, and nearly all of the murders. They also found that this 7 percent had five or more arrests before the age of 18.
5. Crime Does Pay: Most Criminals Are Not Caught or Convicted.
Consider these statistics compiled by professor Morgan Reynolds (Texas A&M University) concerning burglary:
• 500,000 burglaries take place each month
• 250,000 of these are reported to the police
• 35,000 arrests are made
• 30,450 prosecutions take place
• 24,060 are convicted
• 6,010 are sent to prison; the rest paroled
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/crime.html