NP Rank:
Supreme Ct Justices :Concern re Obama Adm. on sex offenders
Today in Washington, DC, Supreme Court justices voiced their skepticism and concern about the Obama administration's argument asserting that the U.S. Congress can keep sex offenders in custody for an indefinite time beyond their served out prison sentences.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the administration's top courtroom lawyer, had pleaded with the justices for the upholding of a 2006 federal law in which the continued detention of sexually dangerous federal inmates who have completed their prison terms.
Kagan was challenged by Chief Justice John Roberts, who asked why the federal government's authority in such cases does not end when the prisoner's sentence is done, and by whose authority should it be extended, and why?
A 1997 The Supreme Court ruling held that U.S. states could confine dangerous sex offenders to psychiatric facilities and other institutions after their prison sentences have been served.
It is now questioned as to whether or not the same right should be granted to the federal government, and how this might open the door to dangerous abuse and miscarriages of justice. For instance, particularly worrisome is the thought that this ruling might be extended to other or lesser sorts of crimes or to the falsely accused and wrongly convicted.
Politicians from both U.S. political parties have backed tougher measures to deal with sex offenders in the U.S. criminal justice system to try to make sure they do not commit repeat crimes.Crime has been a major issue in U.S. politics and many elected officials are sensitive to any accusations from opponents that they are too lenient on violent convicts. There has been ongoing public concern over repeat sexual offenders.
'TAKING OVER EVERYTHING'
Of the nine Supreme Court members, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia appeared the most troubled by the law.
Scalia told Kagan he was unimpressed by her argument that the federal government had to step in because some states might not confine prisoners who pose a danger. "This is a recipe for the federal government taking over everything," Scalia said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that under the government's theory, any dangerous person could be held indefinitely.
A U.S. appeals court struck down the law for exceeding the limits of congressional authority and for intruding on police powers the U.S. Constitution reserves for the states, many of which have their own similar laws.
The law had been challenged by five inmates who had been kept in custody at a federal prison hospital in North Carolina after their sentences ended.
The federal law defined "sexually dangerous" as someone who suffered from a serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder and would have difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.
Kagan defended the law. Of approximately 15,000 federal prisoners who have engaged in sexually violent acts or child molestation, the government has identified only about 100 inmates for detention after serving their sentence, she said.
Kagan ended her argument by saying that Congress took the reasonable step of making sure the federal government can continue to hold a sexually dangerous, mentally ill prisoner when the state would not act.
G. Alan DuBois, an assistant federal public defender in North Carolina, argued that the law should be struck down and said the government's power to hold someone ended once the prison sentence has been served.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (2)
at 12:45 on January 14th, 2010
Here in the UK we have a sentence from the courts "at her Majesty's Pleasure", used in cases where the culprit is under 18 years of age and charged with a serious crime, and for serious crimes where the sentence of "life impisonment" is deemed inadequate, as it can mean a term of as little as 15 years.
Nowadays, it is not the monarch who decides when a sentence is finished, but the home secretary. The good point is, it means the person who commits a particularly nasty crime will be serving a sentence that will prevent them from reoffending, the potential bad point is obviously that the home secretary can keep a person behind bars without recourse to the courts, but that is pretty well taken care of by the parole board reviews and access to appeals.
And quite honestly, America worrying about it now, after the events in a certain camp in a certain bay, is kind of worrying about shutting the door after the horse has gone walkabout......
at 12:47 on January 14th, 2010
Agreed, many times over!