Joshua Pantesco about the ruling of a Federal sex offender commitment law as unconstitutional. I include an excerpt:
A federal law allowing prison officials to indefinitely commit sex offenders to a mental hospital following their prison term is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, effectively freeing five convicted sex offenders pending the government’s filing of a motion to stay the order. Senior US District Court Judge Earl Britt [official profile] of the US Eastern District of North Carolina [official website] struck down the section of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 [text] allowing prosecutors to request that a sex offender be committed to a mental hospital upon “clear and convincing evidence” that the person is “sexually dangerous” and thus likely to commit the crime in the future. Britt ruled that Congress does not have the power to influence outcomes of criminal proceedings that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts.
I believe that this means states can still enact their own laws that enable local courts to commit sex offenders who pose a risk to society.
Personally, I suggest just doing away with maximum sentences all-together. It does not make sense to release anyone until they have been rehabilitated, and if they cannot be rehabilitated then I suggest they never get released.
We lock victimizers in jail to stop them from hurting more people. It defeats the whole purpose if they get released from the correctional facility before being fully corrected.
What do you think?
