Supreme Court okays indefinite prison for sex offenders

Here’s a law school hypothetical:  A person is convicted at trial of the offense of extortion.  He receives a sentence of 10 years.  Prior to his release from prison, however, the government decides he might very well commit another, similar offense if he is released from his sentence; so the government motions the court to have him detained in prison.  At a hearing on the motion, the government shows — by a lesser burden than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (the burden they must have met in order to have had him incarcerated in the first place), that he might very well commit another offense after his release.  So, the court orders him held beyond the end of his original sentence, and perhaps indefinitely, because he might similarly harm victims if he is released.  The law student would be required to respond to this hypothetical, with an analysis of whether such indefinite incarceration beyond a term of imprisonment for an offense passes constitutional muster.

The hypothetical would be an easy one to correctly answer.  Clearly, such a move on the part of the government would be violative of more than one provision in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, this hypothetical is not a hypothetical at all.  The Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion earlier this month, confronted just such a question; except in this case, it involved a real federal statute enacted in 2006.  The High Court found, by a 7-2 majority, that of a person who has already served their term of imprisonment can be detained for an indefinite time beyond that, simply because the government shows they might commit a similar offense after release.

The particular facts of the case before the Court were different from those of my hypothetical; but the principle is the same.  The Supremes were presented with a 2006 law that permits the US Attorney General to seek to have a federal inmate convicted of certain federal sex offenses held in prison indefinitely, if the government shows he might be inclined to commit other sex offenses.

The nature of certain sex offenses make those who commit them among the most despicable of people.  State governments have wide leeway in dealing with such offenders, but the federal government does not.  Neither the Congress nor the president possess express or implied power under the Constitution to incarcerate people simply to “protect the public,” much as people might want it to do.  This was the thrust of Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in this latest case (in which he was joined by Justice Scalia).

Permitting the federal government to act as a national nanny and detain people without any legitimate authority to do so under the Constitution, even those who have commited despicable crimes, is offensive to the basic underpinnings of our system of federalism and limited federal government powers.  That a majority on the Supreme Court is willing to jettison those principles is deeply disturbing.

117 comments Add your comment

retiredds

May 28th, 2010
10:03 am

I have enjoyed reading the many blogs, especially Neo-Carlinist. What I find amusing is that Mr. Barr does not seem interested in joining one of the better conversations on “his” blog.

Bye Bye Constitution

May 28th, 2010
10:10 am

does not give them

neo-Carlinist

May 28th, 2010
10:17 am

Bye Bye, hypothetically speaking (pun intended). It’s been 30 years since took a History of the Constitution course in college, and excuse me if I am being philosphical for the sake of being philosophical but the Federal Government has repeatedly demonstrated it’s “de facto” (internment camps, recent SCOTUS ruling, maybe even the draft) right to detain, regardless of whether or not it has the de jure (law) right to do so. Again, excuse the “Animal House/smoking pot in the professor’s bathroom” reference, but if “freedom” (detention, second amendment, speech) is conditional (criminal record, “fire in a crowded movie house”, time of war), it’s not freedom maybe we need to all agree that whatever rights exist, are NOT “inalienable”, or “bestowed by a Creator”, they are; temporary, and subject to the prevailing political winds, or the whims of a handful of politicians and judges (who are ultimately OWNED by special interests, and do not represent We the People). I can live with that.

TGL

May 28th, 2010
10:20 am

neo, Don’t forget Mohammad the pedophile. Mr. Grumpy, what about cultures in India or arranged marriages in Europe/USA until the 1900’s? Also, one could argue from an evolutionary standpoint that men are going to be naturally attracted to the most fertile. Thus, a blossoming young teen should be free game, right?

However, the thought of molesting a child sickens me. I am merely commenting on the acceptance of some sexual deviants (homosexuals) and the bashing of others. I would include adulterers in the sexual deviant category also.

neo-Carlinist

May 28th, 2010
10:28 am

excuse me folks, I live in GA. I do not enjoy the freedom to by fermented malt beverages or distilled spirits on Sundays, so I am off to Kroger and the liquor store. I guess Sonny Perdue et al see this as a very important “public safety” issue. Does the 1964 Civil Rights Act discuss beer-drinkers rights vis-a-vis teetotalers? doesn’t Sonny know the first “taxes” levied in the young Republic were levied on whiskey?

Bye Bye Constitution

May 28th, 2010
10:33 am

neo—I understand what you are saying. I am saying they don’t have the power to do it, even if they are. If we as a society ignore and lay down instead of calling them (govt) on it (abuse or out-of-bounds with their power grabs) then we are doomed as a society.

nice chat and good day my friend

Tricky

May 28th, 2010
10:35 am

No one really cares about sex offenders. But which group will be next?

DW

May 28th, 2010
11:36 am

Anybody here ever see that movie “Minority report” with tom cruise where the police arrest people BEFORE they commit a crime? Kinda reminds me of this topic except our govt cannot currently predict the future but will instead lock people up before they MIGHT do something to further themselves politically..

Bob LeBlah

May 28th, 2010
12:09 pm

Mentally ill patients are incarcerated indefinitely. People that are sick enough to commit disgusting sex crimes can rest in the bottom of a well for all I care.

Will

May 28th, 2010
12:15 pm

When you say sex offender, are you talking about a person who violates a child or just underage like 17. I know some of you can not see the difference but there is a difference. I say if it is a child 14 or younger then execute them. Unless it is a woman molesting a boy. I am one of those who believe there is a difference between a young boy having a sexual experience and a young girl who is being raped.

neo-Carlinist

May 28th, 2010
12:39 pm

Will, take sex out of it. What is “the age of consent” for a hunting license? back in the day, I doubt some sodbuster in Kansas worried about teaching his eight or nine year-old the art of hunting jackrabbits or quail. Same with the consumption of alcohol. Muslims and many Christians will not drink at any age, whereas I know families who allow children under the age of 21 (some as young as 10) to have a small glass of wine with Sunday dinner. And more often than not, these children grow up to become healthy (non-alcoholic) adults. The “conditions” which determine when a rape occurs or when a person is molested cannot be a matter of gender. The age of consent (in a particular state, or a particular culture), and whether or not the sex is consentual (”no means no”) is the rule of thumb. I am sure everyone from GA/ATL remembers the Genarlo Wilson case. Does your gender-specific rule apply to taxes, speeding tickets or armed robberies (if a male robs a female, it is a crime, but not the other way around)?

retiredds

May 28th, 2010
12:53 pm

Neo, Bob Barr is the king when it comes to slamming the nanny government, but I have never seen him slam Sonny over the “father knows best” dictum that “thou shalt not buy “likker” on Sundays as long as I’m governor. I guess the shoe doesn’t fit in Barr’s worldview.

Ron Reddon

May 28th, 2010
12:56 pm

This type of indeterminate incarceration law can be traced right back to the sentence mitigationist philosophies of correctional agencies, judicial systems and governments.

“Smoke a joint, then rape a woman or a kid, you aren’t really responsible for your actions.” It’s the drugs. Or maybe your Mommy didn’t bake you cookies when you got home from school one day when you were 9 years old. You get treatment, and a large chunk taken off your sentence if you complete your 12 Steps or group therapy. This type of mitigationist correctional philosophy is also why we have repressive drug laws and draconian gun laws in this nation, that punish those who have harmed nobody, yet still get punished for the actions of the few who commit crimes against others.

Once definitive sentencing guidelines for a crime were diminished or blurred by sentence mitigationist philosophies like “treatment,” “community alternatives,” “early parole” etc., that set up the expected community response of supporting indeterminate incarceration, for individuals most likely to commit crimes while out on those sentence mitigationist alternatives to definite, flat-time incarceration periods.

As long as the sentence mitigationist believers are in control of penal philosophy in this nation, then we can expect less freedom for society as a whole, and more indefinite incarcerations for various types of offenders.

kimmer

May 28th, 2010
1:30 pm

I don’t know this for fact but I expect sex criminals, out of all types of lawbreakers, are probably the most likely to re-offend because the motivation for their crimes are sexual gratification which we all know is a very powerful drive. Also, the victims of sexual abuse are often the most vulnerable and innocent among us resulting in really hideous crimes. Then we also have our Constitution that is the basis of our freedom and must be protected. The answer? Elementary my dear Watson. Create very long prison sentences for sex offenders and hand em out. Along with this come up with a parole system based upon evaluation of the perps likelihood to be an ongoing threat to society and voila! You have a constitutional means to keep sex offenders where they belong for a very long time with the means to evaluate and parole those who are unlikely to re-offend.

Another way to manage this is to offer voluntary castration in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Waynetryingtomoveon

May 28th, 2010
1:34 pm

In 1990 I pled guilty to 2 counts of adult date rape. There were no weapons or “physical violence” involve. Nor did it involve minors in any form or fashion. I was self-centered, used to getting what I wanted, and let my values deteriorate for a while. I was given a 15 year sentence by a woman judge who heard all of the facts and “Split” my sentence, having me serve 3 years with the rest suspended with probation. I did well while locked up and then got out. I stayed out for 3 years, then received the only DUI of my life in 1995. That DUI resulted in my probation being revoked And I was sent back to prison, where I was denied parole after parole. I ended up serving my remaining sentence in full, and was released in Aug. 2007. I haven’t been in any kind of trouble since. My neighbors like and respect me, because they got to know me and see how I lead my life. But my gripe is that I have to be lumped in the same category as the worst type of child-molester. My life is very restricted by the sex- offender banner inked in red on my driver license. My record is over 20 years in the past. Will laws ever change to give a person who fully completed his or her sentence to be able to move on in this world? I believe in protecting children, and would stand up for a child or woman who was being harmed. But the stigma of what I did over 20 years ago will seemingly hang over me forever. God Bless America.

JamesInGA

May 28th, 2010
1:41 pm

I don’t condone sex offenders but that isn’t the issue here people. If we as a society want sex offenders jailed indefinitely then our elected officials need to put that punishment on the books as the sentence for the crime. It’s not okay for the government to circumvent due process and change the rules in the middle of the game. Today it’s sex offenders, tomorrow, who knows, it could be traffic tickets. Laugh all you want but I bet most of the people that agree with this ruling are conservative Republicans…I’ll call you RINOs because this is clearly government pushing aside the rights granted to ALL citizens (yes, even criminals) by the Constitution. It’s like the PATRIOT Act…big cheers for it from the far right when Bush was in charge but now that Obama is in charge they don;t like it anymore. You can’t have it both ways. Think of this as yet another back door and precedent for the government to trample all over OUR rights. Did none of you take simple civics classes in middle school? (For the record I’m Libertarian.)

Henny

May 28th, 2010
1:44 pm

People convicted of sex offenses are already sentenced to lifetime punishment. Perhaps the death penalty would be the most merciful punishment for them.

neo-Carlinist

May 28th, 2010
1:46 pm

it’s real pickle, isn’t it? this nation was founded and settled by risk takers and libertarians, but as we have grown, for whatever reason (we’ll set the socioligists ponder the question), a co-dependent relationship developed. sure Ayn Rand and the faux Libertarians of the world will yammer about “rugged individualists” but since we hit California and whupped the injuns (with the help of the Nanny state’s Army), the path to success is not individual (you gotta bribe/lobby the right bureacrat to do it on your own, anymore). I guess I have walked into my own ambush here, but when I look at 75%-80% of John and Joan Q. Public, I say to myself; “…this person NEEDS a nanny…” I suppose we can debate the merits of having the state be the nanny, as opposed to private sector baby-sitters, but I think the gub-ment kinda likes changing diapers (for a fee), wiping runny noses, and serving milk and cookies.

JamesInGA

May 28th, 2010
1:47 pm

One more thing…if you engage in oral sex with your wife/husband in the privacy of your own home than YOU are a sex offender in the eyes of the State of Georgia. Don’t believe me? Look up the sodomy laws. So if you engage in oral sex with your spouse and get busted by the cops should the government be able to lock YOU up indefinitely? I bet you would say no, but this is indeed the slope down which we are sliding. And it IS very arbitrary…if you confront a puritanical judge or worse a hypocrite like Sen. Larry Craig you better believe they will make an example out of you too!

neo-Carlinist

May 28th, 2010
1:53 pm

JamesInGA, I believe the sodomy law was overturned in 1999 or 2000. There may still be a fornication (minors having sex) and possibly even adultery (sex with a married person), but I’m pretty sure sodomy is considered legal between consenting adults (in GA)

Marco

May 28th, 2010
2:00 pm

Mark, if I were you, I would move to another country. Not trying to be a smart aleck, I would. It’s probably the only opportunity to truly start over. Sad but true.

DW

May 28th, 2010
2:17 pm

Good call JamesinGA. This is alarming

JamesInGA

May 28th, 2010
2:34 pm

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2009 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.

*** Current through the 2009 Regular Session ***

TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6. SEXUAL OFFENSES

O.C.G.A. § 16-6-2 (2009)

§ 16-6-2. Sodomy; aggravated sodomy; medical expenses

(a) (1) A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.

nelsonhoward

May 28th, 2010
3:06 pm

Did you know Georgia corn is sold in New York. I could hardly believe my eyes. What is Georgia corn doing so far from home? I am a great believer in each state growing their own corn. Same true with the law, each state should have their own laws. There is general consensus that the Supreme Court is infalible because they are final. Let us say that a decision of a lower court is overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. There should be an infinite opportunity to appeal cases. That way we are assuring every citizen the opportunity to keep his case going as long as they want to.

Common Sense

May 28th, 2010
3:09 pm

We live in a complicated world. In order to find the best solution to a problem, sometimes the answer isn’t in a law students text book or in the bill of rights written many many years ago. Sometimes we have to use the right & left part of our brain in order to come up with a pragmatic solution. This recent supreme court opinion is such an instance. Oh yeah, there would be more room for sex offenders in our prison system if certain ‘drugs’ that millions of americans take weren’t outlawed while other more harmful drugs are not only leagal but marketed to us constantly by profit hungry big money lobby corporations…but that’s another issue…..

neo-Carlinist

May 28th, 2010
3:25 pm

JamesInGA, I assumed “aggravated” (non-consenual) sodomy is still a crime, but I guess I am going to reverse myself again and plead the 5th Amendment. I guess “Nanny” is alive and well in GA.

Common Sense

May 28th, 2010
3:30 pm

If I see one more blogger or TV show host holding up our founding fathers and lawmakers, justices, ect as soem kind of all knowing profits that we are to blindly follow no matter what the issue i’m gonna scream. Granted the FF’s were great men for their vision and insight, but can’t we come up with our own ideas? have original thoughts?

neo-Carlinist

May 28th, 2010
3:42 pm

Common Sense, blind faith is not faith in my book. I have long believed we need to update the Constitution. The original document was drafted in a time when the border did not extend beyond the Mississippi River, communication was limited and slavery was legal. Most importantly, there were slightly less than 300 million Americans. Prostitution was legal, and there were no “illegal” drugs. There was no Federal Reserve, and no internal combustion engine (dependence on oil) or nuclear power. No laptops, air travel or the technology to record sound/images (wiretaps and surveilance cameras). If the Consitution is a “living document” it needs some steroids or HGH because it has not grown as the same pace the nation (or the world) has grown. They were some “revolutionary” thinkers, but as you say, none of ‘em could create an operating system, drive an automobile or listen send a “text message”.

Jim Philips

May 28th, 2010
5:07 pm

The Genarlow Wilson case should have taught us something about the shaky classification of “sex offender”. He was about to go on the registry for life merely for receiving consensual oral sex from a teen-aged girl a couple of years younger than him. Clearly, we need strong protection against adult predators who stalk children. But the legal lines need to be very tightly drawn. Life imprisonment needs to be an option in certain clearly defined cases. But the idea of simply holding prisoners after they qualify for release goes against every legal principle that made this nation free.

Rational Person

May 28th, 2010
10:08 pm

It took a day or two, but Bob’s previous column is now debunked at http://factcheck.org/2010/05/more-census-nonsense/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

It’s under the heading “Bob Barr’s bunk.”

Barr's blog

May 29th, 2010
6:12 am

Bob Bar is ……RIGHT! The sex laws have been a tool for not just big brother to abuse rights, but for my wife. Like take the sodomy laws. My wife made a deal with the DA and ratted me out. She sang like a canary. In my case, I never doubted for a moment who Deepthroat was. The danger, in this case, was not so much 1984 as ‘69.

Morrus

May 29th, 2010
7:10 am

Curiously, in a supposed anti-incumbent year, most of the departing are not retiring but seeking higher office. We may recycle more than we replace. The bad news is that a frustrating 114 seats still have but one contestant. Two of them aren’t even incumbents, meaning they will affect state policy without being vetted by voters. And I have to think that we’d be better off if many had run instead for the Legislature — and cut down on the number running unopposed. Georgia’s problems are numerous. They aren’t going away. There’s too much stale thinking at the Capitol, on both sides of the aisle. New voices would be welcome.

david wayne osedach

May 29th, 2010
7:47 am

The only problem I see here is just how much is going to cost states to house most sex offenders for life? California can barely afford to house murderers.

Joel Dockery

May 29th, 2010
8:04 am

This isn’t about sex offenders. This is about the tendency of governments to do what they can get by with rather than what they should do. This ruling doesn’t just affect sex offenders, it affects YOU. If someone can be locked up for a crime they haven’t committed then there is NO LIMIT. The requirement that a person be convicted of a crime previously makes NO DIFFERENCE and will be legislated or argued out of existence. Even if the previous conviction requirement is upheld it really isn’t difficult to catch someone in a crime (or fabricate one) and imprison them indefinitely for saying unpopular things or being part of an unpopular group.
The problem with witch hunts is that WE ALL LOSE.

Liver Lip

May 29th, 2010
8:09 am

GOOD……………..

Joel Dockery

May 29th, 2010
8:38 am

For the record, the government has the power to do anything physically possible AS LONG AS WE PUT UP WITH IT.

Ted Striker

May 29th, 2010
8:41 am

Bob, you are right on point. If Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson or any number of well-respected American patriots were alive today, they’d probably be up in arms over miscarriages of justice such as this.

independent

May 29th, 2010
9:02 am

Contrary to most people’s beliefs, a brief review of web-sourced research documenting sex offender recidivism rates, showed a rate not unlike that of other crimes. Why do s0 many believe that everyone except sex offenders have constitutional rights? The media’s shock-jock sterotyping, politicians pandering for votes, and our natural abhorence of certain sex crimes contribute to this lynch mob mentality.

tom

May 29th, 2010
9:05 am

Many offenders of sex crimes continue their bad behavior given the chance. Rather than indefinate incarceration why not fit them with a gps charm bracelet so they can be tracked continuously and a mandate or regular visits to a probabtion officer for a min of 10 years. This has to be cheaper than locking them up. These people are sick and no known cure exists. A past convicted pedophile was recently arrested for multiple violations of his parole. He is 90 years old.

Reagan Barr Hater

May 29th, 2010
9:39 am

If the term “sex offender” is expanded to include cheating on your spouse like you allegedly did, Mr. Barr, then I wholeheartedly agree with you on the indefinite prison terms.

neo-Carlinist

May 29th, 2010
10:10 am

Joel, please use the past tense; we’ve all lost. check mate was declared years ago. the freedom we’ve lost (or never had) is never coming back. the government has always had the power to do what it wants; it’s part of the “contract” we sign when we become Americans. as I mentioned yesterday, maybe there was a degree of “freedom” enjoyed by Americans as the nation moved west; but as noted, our freedom, infringed on the “inalienable rights” and “blessings of liberty” enjoyed by the folks who already called North America home. it might be worth noting these folks existed for hundreds of thousands of years without a government or Bill of Rights. they fought amongst themselves as we do, and maybe they were a little behind in the “technology” department, but I digress. as soon as the borders were set and the 48 continguous states were established, the Federal Government began to levy taxes and enforce (self-serving) federal law. and if you look beyond the libertarian talking points (draconian drug war, indefinite incarceration for sex offenders, out of control, IRS) you will see the Federal Government continues to solidify it’s position via covert and overt stepts towards a more “secure” nation (police state – nearly 25% of Americans with jobs are employed by either the military, corrections (local/state/federal), and/or law enforcement. so, We the People are little more than McDonald’s franchisees. We enjoy the “freedom” to succeed or fail in our endeavors, but we are not “free” to run the business outside of the policies laid down by McDonald’s corporate office. I’m not saying this is good or bad, it’s just not “freedom”.

wardenerd

May 29th, 2010
10:48 am

I worked for the US Justice Dept. when this indefinite sentence BS came up . The constitution forbids indeterminant sentencing. If you want to keep child molesters and sex predators locked up longer give them longer sentences. If you allow the government to do this they will be holding people beyond their release dates because they might rob another bank or they might sell drugs again. While this seems outrageous i remember when a seatbelt violation was only going to be $5 and only if you were stopped for some other violation. Now the fine and court cost run close to $150 and you can be stopped anytime. This creeping government will happen in this case. Many in the Justice Dept. think this is unconstitutional and worry that it is wrong but as good beauracrats do they carry on with the plan. What seperates the US from the banana republics is that we respect the law and everyday we respect it less.

Atlantarama

May 29th, 2010
11:28 am

Considering prison overcrowding, sex offenders should instead be required to take testosterone-lowering drugs with regular medical testing.

CHA

May 29th, 2010
4:36 pm

Would everyone please read “The pig Farmers Daughter” and understand who is isn’t being charged with sex crimes and why… It’s all part of the broken criminal Justice System.

neo-Carlinist

May 29th, 2010
6:53 pm

CHA, it is not a “criminal justice system” it is a criminal-justice enterprise. it’s a business like “the war on drugs” the “war on terrorism”, the “war on climate change” and the “war on poverty”. people lie all the time. they lie in court, they lie in business, they lie in church… the only form of “justice” in a case of rape or child molestation would be for the victim to assault the perpertator in the same manner (remember Don Corleone’s comments to the Bona Sera, who asked him to kill the men who beat and raped his daughter in the Godfather?). does anyone here think the SCOTUS, the George Assembly, the U.S Congress, APD or some pathetic prosecutor or smarmy criminal defense attorney cares about “justice”? they just want to dispose of cases and GET PAID. it’s not about the “system” it’s about the bottom line.

Michael

May 29th, 2010
8:22 pm

What the advocates fail to see is that the case creates precedent that will later be applied to other crimes. Shoplifters never stop so keep them in prison forever. Forgers never stop. Millionaire brokers who commit securities will likely defraud others when they get out since they are well trained and connected — likely to re-offend. While we’re at it, better make armed robbers and forgers register where they live and not let them live within 1000 feet of a bank, store or ATM.

neo-Carlinist

May 30th, 2010
7:16 am

it just occurred to me that the Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment”. could the Founding Fathers have been any more vague? and is it me, or by nature, are not ALL sex crimes either “cruel or unusual” (or both)? as stated by others (both sides of the issue), we need to clearly establish what and what does not constitute a “crime” and sentence accordingly. no plea bargains, no “time off for good behavior” no commuting of sentences or pardons (and that goes for “Scooter” Libby crimes, not merely sex crimes). we need a better mousetrap, folks.

nelsonhoward

May 30th, 2010
7:30 am

I thought for sure you would have a new column for today, Sunday. I would like to see a sequel to the columun on keeping sex offenders in prison for ever. There was a pretty good article in the LA Times some time ago. It was from the point of view of a parole office who paroled sex offenders reported to. It centered around every sex offender having an ankle bracelet so that their entire 24/7 could be tracked and recorded. Every offender[100%] at some time during the day violated the terms of parole. They were either too close to a school or a park or a daycare center, some place where children congregated. The consensus of all sex offender parole counselors was the public wants sex offenders locked up for the rest of their lives. Now, I hate to keep bringging up the Constitution and Supreme Court, however is there not a violation of the most of the important tenants of the Constitution in there somewhere? There was a case down in Texas 1944 where the appellant wanted to give a speech on workers joining a union[ Thomas v. Collins] There was an ordinance that prohibited public assembly without first getting a permit. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court that his civil rights were deprived under the 1st and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The laws have their limits, in the final analysis, that is why the Supreme Court ruled that sex offenders could be imprisoned forever, bowing to public sentiment.

daisy

May 30th, 2010
8:15 am

Read all comments,but the fact remains that it is unconstitional to make anyone serve more time than was originally sentenced. i am an incest and rape survivor who has no sympathy for sex offenders/the REAL crime is the slap on the wrist that child molesters/child porn are given less time than if they stole a stupid car.The problem lies in our court system,who on a daily basis,hand down idiotic and lenient punishment to these dangerous animals that will be someday soon be roaming free to hunt for their next victim!these judges need to understand that the revoving door for offenders might just lead to their neighborhood or own child to be their target then they will see the blazing red flags!by then it will be too late!The judicial system definitely needs a wake up call of the gravity of these horrendous crimes that the victim must somehow learn to live,love and trust again the punishment must fit these crimes with longer(forever)punishment BECAUSE THE VICTIMS NEVER TRUELY GET OUT OR OVER IT,IT STAYS WITH THEM ALWAYS!!!now thats unconstitutional- save the children and stop worrying about the offenders rights -they destroyed them by their own actions when they victimized a defenseless child

Moses Waddell

May 30th, 2010
9:01 am

When the “thought police” get wind of this, we’ll have a Supremes ruling that if you just THINK ABOUT doing something naughty, you’re gonna be well Donne. Don’t chuckle. That day is closer than you think…if you bother to think.