By BJ Bjornson
You know, for the �Land of the Free�, you all sure do like the idea of putting people behind bars forever.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" after their prison terms are complete.
The high court in a 7-2 judgment 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 but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
As John Cole puts it, why even bother with a sentence? I suppose it will make folks feel better to say they�re tossing these guys away for a few years when in actual fact as soon as they�re behind bars, the key�s going to get thrown away.
And I can�t wait to see what the reaction will be to the fact that the lawyer arguing the government�s case was Elena Kagan, now Supreme Court nominee Kagan, and that the dissenters were Thomas and Scalia.
This is not an easy one. We recently had a young girl rapped and killed by a sex offender who had been out of jail for less than 24 hours after serving six years for sexual assault. There are some people who are simply to broken to be fixed. This is not an ideal solution but better than what we have now.
ReplyDeleteThe devil is in the details of the law, but on the surface there is nothing wrong with indefinitely detaining predators who are at extreme risk of re-offending and cannot be rehabilitated.
ReplyDeletePrison is not just to punish offenders. It is also to protect society from people who are dangerous.
It is a difficult issue Ron, though from the article, at least one of those held under this law was convected for possession of child porn, which while ugly and all, is a far cry from actually going out and raping young kids. How such things get applied is always the issue, and I�m none too hopeful given recent events.
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, we do have something similar on the books in Canada for dangerous offenders. The provision must be sought during sentencing and is subject to periodic review. The article doesn�t indicate what the process for designating �sexually dangerous� felons is, or if there is any robust review process. I admit to being skeptical, but if it turns out to be robust and with proper oversight and transparency, I will gladly revise my opinion of this opinion.
BJ our "dangerous offender" provision lasts for 7 years, it's not indefinite. After 7 years the offender can apply for parole which at least means the individual will receive another assessment at which time the Crown could weigh in again as well as concerned citizens. I'm not sure whether the Harper gov't, as part of their, in my opinion insane approach to our justice system try to change the current provisions & adopt an "indefinite" approach which I think would be wrong. We also have something called a Long Term Offender which is also established at the time of sentencing and which means after the full term of a sentence is served the offender is closely supervised in the community for 10 years.
ReplyDeleteAs you likely know, there are some particularly vicious sexual offenders in small, and quite remote, Northern communities. As I recall some at sentencing in Iqaluit have been deemed dangerous offenders but some haven't. In the case of the latter I remember some communities - Cambridge Bay for example - wanting to return to banishing these individuals which of course was not allowed. In the old days, pre-RCMP and southern justice arriving, I understand the flow-edge was used to solve long term intractable problems.
Geoff, check the link in my comment, the dangerous offender can be sentenced to an indeterminate period. It does have to be reviewed at least every seven years, but it can be set for an indeterminate period otherwise, and that has nothing to do with Harper, I'm pretty sure its always been that way. The Harper government is just trying to make it much easier to designate people dangerous offenders than it was previously, which may account for the recent rise in the number of them being imprisoned.
ReplyDeleteI know someone who will be affected by this decision. After serving their sentence, they have been living with tighter and tighter restrictions on their life, and restrained choices for jobs and living, because of the drive to protect society from a group whose majority of members is extremely unlikely to reoffend.
ReplyDeletePerhaps in the small percentage of cases where an offender is dangerous this option should be considered, but that should be part of their sentencing, and not applied post facto. Just like the risk of terrorism, changing the laws and rules because we are scared of the exceptions is wrong.