http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/05/17/national/w122400D14.DTL(05-17) 14:00 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court took two cracks at one of the law's thorniest questions Monday: When can you lock up a prisoner and throw away the key? Not when it's a teenager who hasn't killed anyone, the justices said. But when it's a "sexually dangerous" inmate, maybe so, even if he has completed his federal prison sentence.

In a second case, the court voted 7-2 to uphold a federal law that allows for the indefinite imprisonment of inmates considered mentally ill and "sexually dangerous," no matter that their sentences have been served.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan successfully argued the government's case in front of the Supreme Court in January. Kagan has now been nominated to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Kagan compared the government's power to commit sexual predators to its power to quarantine a federal inmate whose sentence has expired but who has a highly contagious and deadly disease.

In Monday's sex offender case, the court said the federal civil commitment law is appropriate for maintaining "the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others."

Lower federal courts held that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered "sexually dangerous."

But "we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact" this law, Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion.

The law has been invoked for roughly 100 federal prisoners. Authorities must persuade a federal judge that continued imprisonment is necessary and also must try to transfer prisoners to state control.

The challenged provision was part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act that President George W. Bush signed in 2006.

The act, named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child ****ography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.So, the federal government can already imprison you forever if you're a "terrorist" (meaning, a bad guy they don't like).

And the states can now imprison you forever if you're a "sex offender" (meaning, a sexual thoughtcriminal, based on what some fictional old man in the sky says).

Welcome to the land of the free (except if the Christian majority doesn't like you).

Strike 1 for Kagan, too.

title was misleading from the main page of the forums, I really wanted to hear about sex by tudamorf, maybe some techniques to try and use as well as add in some of my own talents.

I can't wait until someone who is diagnosed as an alcoholic, or drug addiction, which is legally a disease, and gets locked up under interpretation in similar legislation.

quote"Welcome to the land of the free (except if the Christian majority doesn't like you)."

this land has not been free in over 500 years, even then it had some sorts of laws and restrictions by the natives. The problem is with the laws themselves as they have slowly become more restrictive to the general public, thus are often enforced and punished a great deal more now than ever, of course increasing the amount of law enforcement helps, as new classifications of criminal conduct are made, or otherwise enforced in strict measures. This is not to say that some sorts of newish laws such as domestic violence laws are automatically bad, they generally were not enforced in say the 50's when that sort of practice was quite common despite what the history books say about the good people of the time.

Also, such things as it is often thought of, that people really abstained from intercourse during many time periods until married, which is a bold faced lie. If they really were, things like the book the scarlet letter would not exist nor many of the older documents detailing punishments, such as the bible, new testament, old testament, as well as the koran. It reminds of of Pirates of the Carribean: Curse of the Black Pearl; when the incarcerated with Captain Jack Sparrow were discussing the black pearl never leaving survivors, to which Jack reminded them, if there were no survivors, where do the stories come from......

edit... apparently it is now sex by palamin......

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/05/17/national/w122400D14.DTLSo, the federal government can already imprison you forever if you're a "terrorist" (meaning, a bad guy they don't like).

And the states can now imprison you forever if you're a "sex offender" (meaning, a sexual thoughtcriminal, based on what some fictional old man in the sky says).

Welcome to the land of the free (except if the Christian majority doesn't like you).

Strike 1 for Kagan, too.
Well, in all fairness, that is their sexual orientation. And you can't change it anymore than you change a heterosexual into a homosexual, or a homosexual into a heterosexual.

Do you have any experience with sexual criminals, Tudamorf? I tell you what, Napa is not that far from you. Take a trip up there and spend some time, a few weeks even, in the mental facility up there.

This matter is not a matter of religion. But you won't know that until you meet the people I am talking about. And if you are experiencing collective guilt on the matter, just remember that our ancestors just killed these people, rightly so. We are letting them live, that should assuage your guilt, even if you don't know what you are talking about.

If your concern is that everyone in the 'sex offender' spectrum are treated the same. Well, sorry, that also is a problem with our society. Everyone must be treated the same way.

If you have a female teacher who arranged a meet with at 15 year old boy, but never made the meet, let alone had sex with him,,,,is lumped into the same category as the guy who rapes babies. They are both 'sex offenders' It is your sense of fairness which puts these two people in the same grouping. And they must be treated the same according to your overall noble sense of fairness. Right?

That has to help your sense of personification...right. You can say to yourself... "What if I were a sex offender? I would want to be treated fairly, wouldn't I. We, then should treat all sex offenders the same. Just in case I turn out to be a sex offender one day." Self preservation, and all.

I btw, I went to 7-8th grade with a girl.
Who grew up and became a teacher.
And only had arranged a meeting with a 15 year old boy.
But never met him, nor had sex with him.

And part of her plea to remain out prison, was that she is now a registered 'sex offender'. She lost her teaching cred too, but that is minor(ha, play on words).

But I guess to this might be one of your points. But it your social sense of fairness which wants to put her in the same group as a guy who uses babies as pocket pussies. That's his sexual orientation, you won't be able to change that.



Obtw, 15 year old boys want to have sex with women teachers because they are supposed to want to have sex with them. Our ancestors did. No law will ever change that.

It's not an easy issue for me. In my city, they just caught a guy that was released from prison on a sex-offense crime and was on parole and he committed two more sex offenses and killed his young victims.

If your concern is that everyone in the 'sex offender' spectrum are treated the same. Well, sorry, that also is a problem with our society. Everyone must be treated the same way.The concern is that, like "terrorist," "sex offender" can mean whatever the State (the Christian majority) wants it to mean.

Sure, it can mean middle aged men who rape babies and are truly dangerous to society. But it can also mean, right now under California law, a 19 year old man who has a consensual and perfectly normal relationship with a 17 year old woman.

And if some Christians had their way, "sex offender" would mean any man who doesn't have sex only once a month, with his (female) wife, during the fertile period, without birth control, in the missionary position, with the wife hating all 30 seconds of it.

Then YOU would be a "sex offender" too.

It's funny, I thought libertarians were actually concerned about tyranny.

It's not an easy issue for me. In my city, they just caught a guy that was released from prison on a sex-offense crime and was on parole and he committed two more sex offenses and killed his young victims.So what you're saying is, we should lock people up forever because they might commit future criminal acts, no matter how unlikely those acts might be.

So if you get into a fender bender, we should lock you up, because it means you're an unsafe driver and tomorrow you might kill someone.

Right?

Also, such things as it is often thought of, that people really abstained from intercourse during many time periods until married, which is a bold faced lie.Of course.

And the ones who are the most self-righteous about "sex offenders" are typically the biggest "sex offenders" themselves.

It's all about control.

The concern is that, like "terrorist," "sex offender" can mean whatever the State (the Christian majority) wants it to mean.
You have the 'sex offender' label because of women.
And they want to raise their children without rapists, and child rapists. It is a biological and psychological trait, and it manifests itself like this.
It makes it simple for them to understand, to sell.
It's just an extension of "do it for the children" sell job they do. Blame Candy Lightner. She found the successful pattern of PR and sell job model that everyone uses today.

It is a nice package to sell, that's all it is.

Sure, it can mean middle aged men who rape babies and are truly dangerous to society. But it can also mean, right now under California law, a 19 year old man who has a consensual and perfectly normal relationship with a 17 year old woman.
I agree. But that is a product and result of your treating everyone the same. Or wanting to treat everyone the same.

And if some Christians had their way, "sex offender" would mean any man who doesn't have sex only once a month, with his (female) wife, during the fertile period, without birth control, in the missionary position, with the wife hating all 30 seconds of it.
I don't know what this means. I guess. If it means what I think it means...
That's why we need judges. Laws should not be applied to everyone equally, because people are not equal.

We should not have these labels that broad stroke every case into one group. They are not the same. I suppose that is what you are saying.

But people like you want all laws applied to everyone equally.


Then YOU would be a "sex offender" too.
Would?
I don't know what you mean.

It's funny, I thought libertarians were actually concerned about tyranny.
I am.
But there are people, have always been people who are not like you or I.
And they don't belong in society. Pedophilia and rape are these people's sexual orientation.

It's not funny. I know who these people are. I have experience with them. They are not like you or me. Well, I don't really know you. They are not like me.

Like I said, you should take a trip to your local psychiatric facility, or Napa State Hospital. Get some experience with the thing before you rant about it without any knowledge.

So what you're saying is, we should lock people up forever because they might commit future criminal acts, no matter how unlikely those acts might be.

So if you get into a fender bender, we should lock you up, because it means you're an unsafe driver and tomorrow you might kill someone.

Right?

Again, you are the type of person who puts people in one box, to label them, to treat them all the same.

That is not how it has to be.

Again, you are the type of person who puts people in one box, to label them, to treat them all the same.
You mean like placing 1.5 billion Muslims in one box and labeling them inferior as you did in another thread?

We should not have these labels that broad stroke every case into one group. They are not the same. I suppose that is what you are saying.I guess you haven't been paying attention then, because I'm saying the exact opposite: we should get rid of the "sex offender" (and "terrorist") label entirely and judge people based on their individual actions.

If a perverted middle aged man actually rapes a child, he can be charged with rape and go to prison for a very very long time.

If a religious fanatic blows up a building, he can be charged with murder, mayhem, arson, and so on, and be executed or go to prison for life.

The labels are just a power grab, by the majority, to find new ways to oppress minorities who don't commit real crimes. We don't need them.

You mean like placing 1.5 billion Muslims in one box and labeling them inferior as you did in another thread?
They place themselves in that group.
They worship a prophet who ****ed a 12 year old girl.
They worship a book which calls for your death and enslavement.
They believe in an invisible man in the sky.

If you think that pedophilia and rape and Islam are the same, go for it. Keep making that case.


Islam is an inferior culture.
Cultures are chosen by choice.


You need to re watch Sesame Street with the 'one of these things are not like the other' bits. Just because you lump pedophilia and Islam in the same box, does not mean that others should. Considering that it was founded by a Pedo, it is not a long stretch.


Islam IS an inferior culture, it has no redeeming qualities. A culture is the common belief and value system.
It is irrational. It is intolerant. It is based on magic.
It is violent.
It is murderous.

If you are saying that those value and belief qualities are superior, show me how. Or are just in the Cultural Relativist group, and ALL cultures are equal, Klath, regardless of how asinine they are. If you are in that group, Klath, why do you seem intolerant of my belief and value system. If you truly are a Cultural Relativist, then my culture is at least equal to Islam, and is equally valid.

If you are saying that those value and belief qualities are superior, show me how.
On what criteria are you basing your claims of superiority? It would be easy to make a case that contradicts your assertion. For example, from nature's standpoint, Muslims are vastly superior to atheists. Look at how many of them there are and then look how many atheists there are. To compound this, the Muslim population is growing faster too. Given their success in propagating their faith, doesn't that make them superior?

So what you're saying is, we should lock people up forever because they might commit future criminal acts, no matter how unlikely those acts might be.
Actually, I didn't say that at all.

However, if someone is seriously incapacitated though, say with Alzheimer's or a history of alcoholism do we keep letting them drive if they keep having "fender benders" or worse, simply because we shouldn't judge someone's future actions by their past actions? Since part of the justice system is about protecting the public it just seems wise to try predict if someone is going to be a threat in the future, in a way that doesn't stop on someone's civil rights unnecessarily. Maybe giving someone like that a GPS/monitoring device for life might be effective.

I admit I haven't researched this myself but keep hearing that sex crimes have very high recidivism rates.

I admit I haven't researched this myself but keep hearing that sex crimes have very high recidivism rates.

I read an article recently claiming the opposite. I can't find it at the moment but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender)has references that back it up.

From: DOJ/Center for Sex Offender Management (http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html)

yth: "Most sex offenders reoffend."

Fact: Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, reoffense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense.

Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories. As a result, research has identified significant differences in reoffense patterns from one category to another. Looking at reconviction rates alone, one large-scale analysis (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) reported the following differences:

child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and
rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period.
Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).
Individual characteristics of the crimes further distinguish recidivism rates. For instance, victim gender and relation to the offender have been found to impact recidivism rates. In a 1995 study, researchers found that offenders who had extrafamilial female victims had a recidivism rate of 18% and those who had extrafamilial male victims recidivated at a rate of 35%. This same study found a recidivism rate for incest offenders to be approximately 9% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).

It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. For example, one study of 108,580 non-sex criminals released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 found that nearly 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release from incarceration; 47% were reconvicted; and 41% were ultimately returned to prison or jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics).

It is important to note that not all sex crimes are solved or result in arrest and only a fraction of sex offenses are reported to police. The reliance on measures of recidivism as reflected through official criminal justice system data (i.e., rearrest or reconviction rates) obviously omits offenses that are not cleared through an arrest (and thereby cannot be attributed to any individual offender) or those that are never reported to the police. For a variety of reasons, many victims of sexual assault are reluctant to invoke the criminal justice process and do not report their victimization to the police. For these reasons, relying on rearrest and reconviction data underestimates actual reoffense numbers.

I admit I haven't researched this myself but keep hearing that sex crimes have very high recidivism rates.Yes, that 19 year old guy who banged his 17 year old girlfriend yesterday is going to want to do it again today, at least once. He's going to be a serial sex offender for a year or so, until the invisible old man in the sky says it's OK.

See, the media is quick to point out the one or two times a year when a "sex offender" -- and they often don't state what that "offense" really was -- goes out and does something really bad. But they don't bother to tell you about the countless "sex offenders" who DON'T do anything bad.

We have 63,000 registered sex offenders in California. (You can go here (http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/index.aspx) and get a nice map pinpointing the name, address, and picture of each one.) This means people who aren't incarcerated but did something that offended the invisible old man in the sky.

If these 63,000 were all serial baby rapists who somehow evaded the usual harsh sentence, got out, and went on to rape babies, then the media would be saturated with stories about it, because as Fyyr states, such stories are instinctively appealing to mothers.

And I will grant you, and Fyyr, that there are some very sick people out there who do rape children, and are very dangerous to society. (Most of them wear robes and carry bibles.) But that is not the issue. They are only a tiny part of the "sex offender" group, and even without the label they can go to prison for a very long time, just for the things they've done.

I read an article recently claiming the opposite

Those are re-conviction rates.

Not recurrence rates.

Yes, that 19 year old guy who banged his 17 year old girlfriend yesterday is going to want to do it again today, at least once. He's going to be a serial sex offender for a year or so, until the invisible old man in the sky says it's OK.

See, the media is quick to point out the one or two times a year when a "sex offender" -- and they often don't state what that "offense" really was -- goes out and does something really bad. But they don't bother to tell you about the countless "sex offenders" who DON'T do anything bad.

We have 63,000 registered sex offenders in California. (You can go here (http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/index.aspx) and get a nice map pinpointing the name, address, and picture of each one.) This means people who aren't incarcerated but did something that offended the invisible old man in the sky.

If these 63,000 were all serial baby rapists who somehow evaded the usual harsh sentence, got out, and went on to rape babies, then the media would be saturated with stories about it, because as Fyyr states, such stories are instinctively appealing to mothers.

And I will grant you, and Fyyr, that there are some very sick people out there who do rape children, and are very dangerous to society. (Most of them wear robes and carry bibles.) But that is not the issue. They are only a tiny part of the "sex offender" group, and even without the label they can go to prison for a very long time, just for the things they've done.

I told you why that are all lumped in one group.
Don't blame me.
Blame the women in your society who want to live without rapist brutes in their midst.

Regardless of that.

Until you spend time with mentally ill people who are sexually inappropriate and worse, I really don't think that you have much ground to make any decisions, or have valid experience in this discussion.

If your opinions are based on only what you have read or seen on TV, and not real world experience, your opinions in this matter are going to be flawed, or at least inadequate.

I spent 18 weeks(I know, a short time) doing a rotation at the local County facility. It is not like what you have been shown, or read, or have seen. It is different, and every person is treated on a case by case basis. I just don't think you know who these people are, or what they do in order to judge the situation.

I spent 18 weeks(I know, a short time) doing a rotation at the local County facility. It is not like what you have been shown, or read, or have seen. It is different, and every person is treated on a case by case basis. I just don't think you know who these people are, or what they do in order to judge the situation.You're missing the point, as usual.

Just because there are some people who really are bad and dangerous, does not mean the State should be given free license to imprison anyone on arbitrary grounds.

"Sex offender" can mean just about anything. And if you let the State forever imprison anyone whom they deem a "sex offender," you are giving them the power to forever imprison anyone for any reason they like.

I call that tyranny.

You can call it whatever you want.

Remember in Silence of the Lambs.
When Migs jacks off, and tosses his wad onto Clarice's face.

Remember that?

What crime is that?
Battery?

But is that really the same as me punching Clarice in the face, which is also battery?
Battery, is just a label.
It encompasses many things, on a spectrum.
I can hit you in the head with a bat, that is battery.
I can spit on you, or slap you in the face, and that is battery.

Again, it seems to me, that you don't think that there should be judges who judge. And that all laws should or must apply to everyone equally.

Do you really want these people walking around you?
Or are you really afraid that THEY will come and take you away for your own sexual proclivities?



If I want to have sex with a woman, and I buy her a house and a car to get to her pussy...That's normal and accepted. Even exalted.

If I want to have sex with a woman and give her 300 to get to her pussy...That's against the law. And I am a sex criminal.

You people are irrational. Your laws are irrational.
If you are personally afraid of THEM coming to get you, Tudamorf, then I suggest you don't let them know what you are and what you like. You keep it a secret. You can keep a secret, right, Tudamorf?

Battery, is just a label.
It encompasses many things, on a spectrum.
I can hit you in the head with a bat, that is battery.
I can spit on you, or slap you in the face, and that is battery.Battery is pretty loosely defined -- offensive contact, not authorized by law -- but the punishment is light too, at the very most six months in jail.

But, if you hit me on the head with a bat, it's not battery, but assault with a deadly weapon, which you can get you up to four years in prison.

See, the spectrum is small, and the punishment is proportional to the harm and how well the crime is defined.

You want to create a new "sex offender" crime, that is not defined at all, can cover anyone the State wants it to cover at a whim, and has a punishment of life imprisonment.

And the reason you want to do it is because there are some real perverts out there, who can already be dealt with using existing crimes.

You want tyranny, and for what?Again, it seems to me, that you don't think that there should be judges who judge. And that all laws should or must apply to everyone equally.Judges have to operate within limits.

If a judge can arbitrarily imprison anyone he feels like for life, just by slapping some undefined label on the person, he is no longer a judge, but a despot.

You want to turn judges into despots. Give me a good reason.Do you really want these people walking around you?What people?

People who have raped children? Except for priests, they're not walking around me, they're incarcerated.

If the "sex offender" label vanished tomorrow, all of the people who really are dangerous will still be in prison.

Assault is the threat of battery(or murder).
Not the act.

If I wave a bat at you, say "I'm going to hit you in the head", that is assault.

Battery is when I actually hit you in the head.

Two different labels, two different crimes.

And it is only assault, if you BELIEVE, I am really going to hit you. Not just the threat.

If I say, "Tudamorf, I'll kill you if you **** my sister." You don't really believe I am really going to kill you. That is not assault.

Unless you really believe me, when I say that. And you know I have the means to carry it out. Then it is a crime. Regardless of what you call it.

But regardless, my point is still the same.
If I toss some schpuge on your nose, is that REALLY the same as hitting you in the nose with a bat? It is the same label. But is it really the same crime?

One is relatively harmless, the other is not. Same crime code applies. Same label applies. Different crime. How do you propose to fix that?

Assault is the threat of battery(or murder).
Not the act.

If I wave a bat at you, say "I'm going to hit you in the head", that is assault.

Battery is when I actually hit you in the head.

Two different labels, two different crimes.Wrong.

Assault is an attempted battery. And it remains assault, even if you complete the battery.

So if you attempt to hit me over the head with a bat, the most serious crime you're guilty of is assault with a deadly weapon. If you spit on me, the most serious crime you're guilty of is battery.

Your example of the threat isn't assault at all, but rather a separate crime altogether, of making a credible threat of injury, a terrorist threat.

But let's put your total ignorance of the law aside for the moment because we're all well aware of it by now and it's not relevant to the issue.

You still haven't answered my question: why do you want tyranny?

I read an article recently claiming the opposite. I can't find it at the moment but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender)has references that back it up.

From: DOJ/Center for Sex Offender Management (http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html)
[I]
yth: "Most sex offenders reoffend."

Fact: Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case. Further, reoffense rates vary among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the offender and the offense.

Hmmm, not as bad as I thought but usually these guys commit a bunch of them before they get caught.

Hmmm, not as bad as I thought but usually these guys commit a bunch of them before they get caught.Almost every criminal, except the really stupid or unlucky ones, commits a bunch of crimes before they're caught.

Should we lock everyone up as a precaution then, just in case?

We can even sell it not as prison, but as your own, sex offender-free personal bubble, where the State guarantees that no sex offender has access to your kid.

Because we all know that sex offenders are hiding in every corner now, waiting to rape your kid, although they didn't exist 30 years ago, and you can't even go out in public anymore because it's so dangerous. :rolleyes:

You still haven't answered my question:

You haven't answered the question.
Why is tossing schpuge on someone, which is harmless.
The same as hitting you with a bat, which is harmful?

It is the same crime, has the same label.

Or using your example, spit.
If I spit on you, it is the same crime as hitting you with a bat.

Why is that. They are not the same.
How do you rectify that in your mind?

You haven't answered the question.
Why is tossing schpuge on someone, which is harmless.
The same as hitting you with a bat, which is harmful?It's not the same. Not the same label, not the same section of our penal code, not the same punishment.

One is punishable by up to six months in jail, the other by up to four years in prison. (I tried to make my explanation idiot-proof, but if you still don't get it, I can point you to the actual law, just ask.)

And that makes a lot of sense. The more harm you do, the bigger the punishment. It makes sense because no religion is involved, only common sense.

With "sex offender," this tiered, logical structure goes out the window. As far as I've seen, every "sex offender" is subject to the exact same punishment, whether it's a 19 year old guy banging his 17 year old girlfriend (who should not be punished at all), or a creepy middle aged serial baby rapist/murderer (who should be put away for life).

You say we need a system where the State can arbitrarily slap a label on someone and stick him in a cage for life, no matter how trivial or serious the "offense" is. That is tyranny.

I am asking you, why do you feel this tyranny is necessary? Do you think that without it, we'll have hordes of creepy middle aged serial baby rapists/murderers roaming around every corner snatching victims?

You say we need a system where the State can arbitrarily slap a label on someone and stick him in a cage for life, no matter how trivial or serious the "offense" is.

I would have to re read the thread to find out where I said this.
I don't remember doing so.

I would have to re read the thread to find out where I said this.
I don't remember doing so.Scroll up.

I scrolled up. And scanned all of my posts to the beginning.

I don't see what you are talking about.

Give me a post number at least.

I scrolled up. And scanned all of my posts to the beginning.

I don't see what you are talking about.

Give me a post number at least.If your concern is that everyone in the 'sex offender' spectrum are treated the same. Well, sorry, that also is a problem with our society. Everyone must be treated the same way.It seemed as though you were defending the ruling.

I did not even read your quoted text until now.

I agree with you that the labels are silly and meaningless in any real sense.
Other than to get Amber Alert, Adam Walsh, Candy Lightner moms all up in a tizzy. To get them to get their lawmakers to make silly new laws. But they should not be used in any real legal sense.

I thought that was clear from my posts.

Additionally, there are people who are different that the rest of us, you would call them 'mentally ill', I suppose. But that is just another label. These are people who pose a perpetual threat to others, and should be committed on a case by case basis. And they don't rightly fit into the same legal realm as those of us who are presumed innocent. These people should be locked up. And they are, and should stay that way. And has nothing to do with religion.

I doubt that you have met any of these people. I have. I was also reiterating several times, that without experience with these people, that your opinion to let them out and free was an poor one. Because you lack the knowledge and experience regarding them, who they are, and what they do. They are not like you or I, and should be treated differently.

At the very same time, you are stating that these people should each be treated on a unique case by case basis(which they usually are), you are also lumping them into the much larger group of people which enjoy normal legal and civil rights, that most of us enjoy. Which is a contradiction to me.

The California State Mental Hospital in Stockton used to hold 4000 mentally ill patients(it now has 45 on the same grounds). Then Michael Douglass' movie came out. They were all released into the community. And this happened in every community and state in the US. All of those people are out there now around you, including many dangerous ones. When the dangerous ones are identified, they really have no reason to be out in the real world. These people don't get better, there is no cure. And it makes absolutely no difference what you label them, they are what they are.

I was also reiterating several times, that without experience with these people, that your opinion to let them out and free was an poor one.I expressed no opinion to "let them out and free". I said that existing laws cover them already, without creating a brand new layer of totalitarianism that applies to everyone.

entally ill people who pose a threat to others can be involuntarily committed WITHOUT the "sex offender" label.

The only reason you'd need the label is that you have no grounds for proving that they're a true danger, and you want an excuse to lock up people arbitrarily.

Not that I'm that enthusiastic about the notion of civil commitment by the State, mind you. The whole notion of being able to lock someone up, at enormous expense and loss of civil liberties, even though they haven't caused society any harm, is a very dangerous one. The State's ability should be limited to only the most severe cases and the criteria should not be religious.

Yes, and this case was a legal challenge to those laws that cover them already.

Yes, and this case was a legal challenge to those laws that cover them already.I mean laws that cover the crimes that actually cause the harm.

The law in question here allowed for indefinite detention of "sexually dangerous" people (which can mean anything), after they have served their sentence. That's what I'm worried about.

Take for example this priest (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/05/22/international/i075400D68.DTL&tsp=1) who was arrested in Brazil today for building an altar boy sex slave dungeon, including rape orgies. If he had done that here, we could have used existing crimes to punish him appropriately.

There is no need for a separate set of vaguely defined "sex offender" crimes to punish people who are "sexually dangerous".