Wednesday, May 19, 2010

More "Time" for Sexual Deviants

Another article that I read on my NPR iPod application.

Personally, I feel like any one convicted of sexual crimes should pay the penalty and in most cases deserve to be in jail for a really really long time, especially those convicted of child molestation.

However, even though I feel this way, I do not agree with the Court's decision in this case. I actually stand with Justice Thomas who states that Congress does not have the right to pass laws that go against the powers listed in the U.S. Constitution.

From what I have always been taught, the Supreme Court's purpose is to interpret laws that Congress passes and validate or question their constitutional validity.

In my own humble opinion, I do not think that the law that Congress passed that states that inmates considered "sexually dangerous" can be held indefinitely after their prison terms have expired is constitutional.

If Congress wants to pass a law stating that the penalty for sexual crimes, fine. But if a person is convicted of a crime and the court, for what ever reason, only gives said person 10 years, Congress should not be allowed to say that this person has to stay in prison after that 10 years is up. The only reason an inmate should have to stay in prison after the term they are given by a court of law is if they have committed another crime while in prison.

What do you think?

1 comment:

  1. My gut reaction on this story was that it amounts to double jeopardy, which is strictly prohibited by the Constitution. If Congress thinks that the penalties for sex crimes aren’t severe enough (which they often aren’t IMHO), then the need to change the law to make the penalties, not write a law that completely defies the Constitution. And the really messed up thing about this decision is that the Supreme Court’s ruling was 7-2. This court is becoming a bitch to big business and big government and not doing their damn job.