Last week the Supreme Court ruled that “sexually dangerous” inmates could be held indefinitely in prison, or civil commitment hospital settings, after their prison terms are complete.

The case, decided with a 7-2 ruling, was raised after four men who were deemed sexually dangerous, were held after their prison sentences were over with no end date in sight. The men attempted to prove in the lower courts that indefinite imprisonment based on suspected “future crimes” was unconstitutional.

Twenty states already have laws that allow for indefinite imprisonment of sexually violent predators. This recent Supreme Court ruling supports those states’ decisions and allows other states to institute similar laws.

This topic is one of great debate, because while most people agree that the protection of the public against sex offenders is primary, the implication behind the government being allowed to impose indefinite imprisonment on someone brings up thoughts of Guantanamo Bay. Two Supreme Court justices, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented in the case, United States v. Comstock, No. 08-1224 for similar reasons.

“The fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime — sex-related or otherwise — does not provide the government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person,” Justice Thomas wrote.

So, what do you think? Is this ruling in the best interest of the public? Is it setting a precedent for the government to indefinitely imprison people for crimes other than sexual offenses? I would love to hear your comments on this controversial ruling!

 


Comments


View Comments / Leave a Comment

This post currently has 17 comments.
You can read the comments or leave your own thoughts.

Trackbacks

From Psych Central's World of Psychology:
Best of Our Blogs: May 25, 2010 | World of Psychology (May 25, 2010)

From Psych Central's website:
Supreme Court Rules on Miranda Rights | Forensic Focus (June 1, 2010)

From Psych Central's website:
"Odd Mental Kinks:" A 1935 Perspective on Psychopathy | Forensic Focus (June 11, 2010)






    Last reviewed: 23 May 2010

APA Reference
McAleer, K. (2010). Supreme Court Rules that Sexually Violent Predators Can Be Imprisoned Indefinitely. Psych Central. Retrieved on September 2, 2014, from http://blogs.psychcentral.com/forensic-focus/2010/05/supreme-court-rules-that-sexually-violent-predators-can-be-imprisoned-indefinitely/

 

 

Subscribe to this Blog: Feed

Recent Comments
  • Sean Zhang: Sorry, but by these standards, the majority of people are sociopaths to a degree. Who, truly, shows as...
  • SRogers: Sociopaths and psychopaths are both very violent and that was the only thing I knew about them. This article...
  • William Bjornson, Aloha, Oregon: Some questions: Can we define a contextual psychopathy such as corporate officer or...
  • Victim of a Sociopath: I believe that a sociopath wants to hurt others, while a psychopath needs to hurt them.
  • Code Drifter: Good grief. To those on here proclaiming to be psychopaths, or saying they think they’re a...
Find a Therapist
Enter ZIP or postal code



Users Online: 12240
Join Us Now!