Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New Supreme Court Decision?

studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:05:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have heard that there has been a new Supreme Court Decision: alleged sexual offenders who have served their time in prison may be legally held in jail for the rest of their lives? Am I understanding the general basis of the decision? I'd really like to know the Court's rationale. These offenders have done their time and measured up to the crime. How the hell can some ruling like this exist in a land that is supposed to be filled with liberty?

Idky, but lately, I've been defending sex offenders frequently in regards to discussions with my peers.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:09:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:05:49 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
I have heard that there has been a new Supreme Court Decision: alleged sexual offenders who have served their time in prison may be legally held in jail for the rest of their lives? Am I understanding the general basis of the decision? I'd really like to know the Court's rationale. These offenders have done their time and measured up to the crime. How the hell can some ruling like this exist in a land that is supposed to be filled with liberty?

Idky, but lately, I've been defending sex offenders frequently in regards to discussions with my peers.

They're sex offenders. Keep them locked up.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:11:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:09:11 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/17/2010 8:05:49 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
I have heard that there has been a new Supreme Court Decision: alleged sexual offenders who have served their time in prison may be legally held in jail for the rest of their lives? Am I understanding the general basis of the decision? I'd really like to know the Court's rationale. These offenders have done their time and measured up to the crime. How the hell can some ruling like this exist in a land that is supposed to be filled with liberty?

Idky, but lately, I've been defending sex offenders frequently in regards to discussions with my peers.

They're sex offenders. Keep them locked up.

Hell no. What is wrong with the general populace's perception of these people? They have done their time for the crime. Get over it. Honestly, I don't even think it should be an obligation for the cities to tell neighbors of accused offenders that they served jail time for sexual offenses. It just leads to people being creeped out by someone who may have been unfairly sentenced and who could have learned his lesson and contribute to the youth of America to compensate.
Hurstman
Posts: 739
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:12:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Purple Jell-O
Cody_Franklin- "You aren't the sharpest bulb in the box, are you?"

Strikeeagle84015- "Why would you want a sharp bulb?"

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" --Eleanor Roosevelt
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:24:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Every last one of those Supreme Court motherf*ckers thinks they're f*cking saints.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:26:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:24:21 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Every last one of those Supreme Court motherf*ckers thinks they're f*cking saints.

That's exactly how I feel. Why is there such animosity towards alleged sexual offenders? Is that just the cultural norm right now?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:29:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I hear ya. You can get on the sex offender registry for taking a whiz in public. That's a bit unjust.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:30:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:29:29 PM, Korashk wrote:
I hear ya. You can get on the sex offender registry for taking a whiz in public. That's a bit unjust.

More like BLATANTLY unjust. I swear, if I'm an activist for anything when I'm older, I'll highly consider joining the group that defends alleged sex offenders.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:34:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I haven't heard of this, but I swear I saw it in the script of a Law and Order episode once.

It's foolish, of course. It gives the state the power to pretty much detain someone indefinitely, even if they serve out their time. That's far from constitutional, and I expect such a decision to be appealed and maybe reversed. It doesn't make any sense.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:34:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:09:11 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
They're sex offenders. Keep them locked up.

I hope you're joking. You can become a registered sex offender for streaking through highschool your senior year or peeing in the woods.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:36:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:34:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I hope you're joking. You can become a registered sex offender for streaking through highschool your senior year or peeing in the woods.

Oh dear...
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:41:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:34:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
I haven't heard of this, but I swear I saw it in the script of a Law and Order episode once.

It's foolish, of course. It gives the state the power to pretty much detain someone indefinitely, even if they serve out their time. That's far from constitutional, and I expect such a decision to be appealed and maybe reversed. It doesn't make any sense.

Omg. I believe it was on Law and Order: SVU. I love that show. I couldn't believe it actually became reality! Do we have incompetent morons on the Bench?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:44:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:41:26 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Omg. I believe it was on Law and Order: SVU. I love that show. I couldn't believe it actually became reality! Do we have incompetent morons on the Bench?

Well, if it was a 5-4 vote, I guarantee I know which five it was...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:44:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:41:26 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Omg. I believe it was on Law and Order: SVU. I love that show. I couldn't believe it actually became reality! Do we have incompetent morons on the Bench?

Once you consider the people that get to put them there.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:46:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:44:21 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/17/2010 8:41:26 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Omg. I believe it was on Law and Order: SVU. I love that show. I couldn't believe it actually became reality! Do we have incompetent morons on the Bench?

Once you consider the people that get to put them there.

Exactly. The current state of the US PISSES ME OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:48:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:44:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/17/2010 8:41:26 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Omg. I believe it was on Law and Order: SVU. I love that show. I couldn't believe it actually became reality! Do we have incompetent morons on the Bench?

Well, if it was a 5-4 vote, I guarantee I know which five it was...

Think again then, buddy boy.

7-2

http://www.nytimes.com...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:49:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:48:32 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Think again then, buddy boy.

7-2

http://www.nytimes.com...

I wonder who the two were - I'd like to shake their hands.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:50:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Omg, 7-2? What kind of ignorant people do we have dictating our beloved rights and liberties? PISSING ME OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:50:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:47:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
Now, I don't know the nuances of the Supreme Court, but this can be appealed, right?

Thomas and Scalia were the dissenters :p
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:52:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:47:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
Now, I don't know the nuances of the Supreme Court, but this can be appealed, right?

Only once harm is shown.

In other words, some citizen has to get screwed over by this ruling first, and then he can sue the USFG... if he has a good enough lawyer, and if a judge decides to hear it. But it'll only get the the SC again if there's like rioting or something really big, like with the segregation stuff. The SC gets thousands of requests a year, and it does maybe a hundred. Only if 4 justices want to hear it does a case get a definite spot in the SC's hearings.

Which ain't gonna happen with the 7-2.

In other words, no.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:55:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would imagine that if someone was batshit nuts and insisted they were going to start killing people the instant they hit the street it could be justified, but it is a dangerous precedent indeed.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:55:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is really angering me. Why are people so dumb? Like the Arizona Immigration Bill, this ruling makes no sense. What the HELL. I hate always feeling powerless to make a change. I'll use college as a platform.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:58:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:53:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/17/2010 8:50:21 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Thomas and Scalia were the dissenters :p

Good on both of them.

I never thought I'd see the day you uttered those words :D
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 8:59:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:58:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/17/2010 8:53:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/17/2010 8:50:21 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Thomas and Scalia were the dissenters :p

Good on both of them.

I never thought I'd see the day you uttered those words :D

I'd like to go up to them and kiss their feet .....
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 9:01:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 8:58:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I never thought I'd see the day you uttered those words :D

Hey, I commend good decisions, whether it's by ideological liberals or conservatives. Thomas and Scalia made a good decision here, and they deserve respect for it.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 9:08:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
what do they mean by "civil commitment"?

sending someone to a mental hospital for sexual deviance?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...