I wonder what effect this will have on Massachusetts case USA-v-Volungus ....5-17-2010 Washington DC:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" after their prison terms are complete.
By a 7-2 vote, the high court reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered "sexually dangerous."
"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 by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
President George W. Bush in 2006 signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates.
The act, named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.
A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse, but declared incompetent to stand trial.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered "sexually dangerous."
But "we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact" this law, Breyer said.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying Congress can only pass laws that deal with the federal powers listed in the Constitution.
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," Thomas said.
Thomas was joined in part on his dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Chief Justice John Roberts last year granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice's order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration's appeal.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not being challenged.
State laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders also are unaffected.
The case is U.S. v. Comstock, 08-1224.
Also Monday, the court ruled that teenagers may not be locked up for life without chance of parole if they haven't killed anyone.
By a 5-4 vote Monday, the court said the Constitution requires that young people serving life sentences must at least be considered for release.
The court ruled in the case of Terrance Graham, who was implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17. Graham, now 22, is in prison in Florida, which holds more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for crimes other than homicide.
"The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. "This the Eighth Amendment does not permit."
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with Kennedy and the court's four liberal justices about Graham. But Roberts said he does not believe the ruling should extend to all young offenders who are locked up for crimes other than murder. ..Source.. NPR
3 comments:
I think what you will see in Volungus is they will go get him now after a year and half and hold a new commitment hearing and put him back in prison. Under the ruling they can basically pickup anyone of us and hold a Commitment Hearing and lock us up without cause. And I think this is what we will see start happening next now that they know they have to power to do so. My guess is they will start going after "Political Troublemakers" who are on the Registry first and work on the rest of us from there.
History is repeating itself. Our country has signed on to the Nazi movement of the 30's. If you look in the history books, you will see the "exact same thing" when it applied to a group of people that society was TOLD to hate. That was the Jews.
In 2003 setting it up (Smith v Doe) and 2006 bringing it to a head (AWA), you are now, in 2010, witnessing the old Nazi regime raising it's ugly head against yet another group of people that society has been told to HATE....that's the Registered Sex Offenders.
"PRISON OFFICIALS" said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.
Are these the "experts" who get to determine if a person is "cureable" or not? Who are these "prison officials"? The guards? The wardens? If this kind of ruling can happen on a Supreme Court with a conservative bent, God help us after Obama inserts his ultra liberal selections filling retirement holes in the next few years.
Post a Comment