What does the supreme court ruling mean for sex offenders?

I wonder if Obama knew this decision was forthcoming? Could it have played a part in his choice for a Supreme ourt Justice? Also remember that, Solicitor General Elena Kagan has no prior judicial experience.

5-18-2010 Washington DC:

The Supreme Court ruled May 17 that those inmates deemed “sexually dangerous” can be held indefinitely — even after their prison terms are complete.

The court’s ruling in the United States v. Comstock upholds a 2006 law signed by President George W. Bush that authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates. That law, formally known as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (named for the son of “America’s Most Wanted” host, John Walsh), was challenged by four men who have been kept behind bars for the potential risk they pose to society, though they were due to be released from prison more than two years ago. Prison officials say the men, who were each sentenced to terms ranging from three to eight years for possessing child pornography, are at risk of committing sexually violent acts or child molestation if released.

I suppose the Bureau of Prisons were also able to prove, what color socks these men would wear in the future. These men had -no contact- crimes and to my knowledge there is no research proving that -possession of child porn will result in a future contact sex offense-, should anyone know of such research please forward links to eAdvocate.

But the question before the court had little to do with sex offenders and more to do with states’ rights. The Court was charged with determining whether Congress overstepped its bounds with the 2006 law. It’s a gray area: While protecting the public’s health and safety is a concern typically left to the states, the federal government is ultimately responsible for the criminal justice system. In the 7-2 majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer asserted the federal government’s right to govern prisons. He wrote: “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.”

Really, why do states have courts and criminal statutes? Also, Justice Breyer had this to say: "We do not reach or decide any claim that the statute or its application denies equal protection of the laws, procedural or substantive due process, or any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondents are free to pursue those claims on remand, and any others they have preserved.”

That was the legal quandary. But the real question for the rest of us who care more about predators lurking in our backyards and less about legal jargon, was what does this case mean for sex offenders? Does this ruling essentially allow the government to lock up sex offenders and throw away the key? Yes and no. The ruling only applies to those inmates who are both sexually dangerous and mentally ill. Which means in order to detain an inmate for longer than their original sentence, the government must prove the prisoner has both previously “engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation” and that they suffer from a “serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder” and would have “serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.” Those prisoners who meet the criteria and are committed can request a regular reevaluation every six months, but there is essentially nothing that prohibits inmates from being continually denied release at each reevaluation.

I wonder how they proved the four men were "sexually dangerous" when all they did was "Possess" child porn, it is a quantum leap by someone very prejudiced against sex offenders. As to had a "Mental Illness/Abnormality" that is a legislative definition, not a definition from any psychological evidence or research. Lawmakers are not qualified to make such determinations and need to be challenged.

Currently, fewer than 100 federal inmates nationwide have been identified for further detention after having served their sentences.

Interesting side note: The ruling is also a victory for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who argued the case. ..Source.. Time