May 17, 2010
— DrewM While everyone is focusing on the Kagan nomination, the court continues to wind down its current term. As always at the end of the court's year there are a number of highly anticipated decisions in controversial cases.
In Graham v. Florida the court ruled 5-4 that sentencing minors to life in prison without the chance of parole for non-capital crimes is a violation of the 8th Amendments prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment".
The court ruled in the case of Terrance Graham, who was implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17. Graham, now 22, is in prison in Florida, which holds more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for crimes other than homicide."The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. "This the Eighth Amendment does not permit."
You just knew Kennedy would write this opinion.
On a human level I certainly agree with him and the decision. On a legal level I'm not sure how you get that a prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" requires the state to allow someone to petition for parole. That's a moral/policy judgment best left to legislatures. However after Kennedy v. Louisiana, it's pretty clear that for the moment the 8th Amendment says whatever Anthony Kennedy says it means.
In another highly anticipated case, United States v. Comstock, the court ruled 7-2 (Thomas and Scalia dissented) that the federal government can institute a preventative detention regime to hold those found to be sexually dangerous past their scheduled release date.
The decision appears to turn on the meaning of our old friend 'the necessary and proper' clause.
Not surprisingly Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, argues for an ad hoc and expansive grant of federal power.
We take these five considerations together. They include: (1) the breadth of the Necessary and Proper Clause, (2) the long history of federal involvement in this arena, (3) the sound reasons for the statute’s enactment in lightof the Government’s custodial interest in safeguarding the public from dangers posed by those in federal custody, (4) the statute’s accommodation of state interests, and (5) the statute’s narrow scope. Taken together, these considera-tions lead us to conclude that the statute is a “necessary and proper” means of exercising the federal authority thatpermits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to pun-ish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the securityof those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others. The Constitution consequently authorizes Congress to enact the statute.
Justice Thomas argues in his dissent (which Scalia joins for the most part) that the Constitution does not authorize any such laws (pdf).
Nevertheless, 29 States appear as amici and argue that §4248 is constitutional. They tell us that they do not object to Congress retaining custody of “sexually danger-ous persons” after their criminal sentences expire becausethe cost of detaining such persons is “expensive”—approximately $64,000 per year—and these States would rather the Federal Government bear this expense. Brief for Kansas et al. 2; ibid. (“[S]ex offender civil commitment programs are expensive to operate”); id., at 4 (“these pro-grams are expensive”); id., at 8 (“[T]here are very practical reasons to prefer a system that includes a federal sex offender civil commitment program . . . . One such reason is the significant cost”).Congress’ power, however, is fixed by the Constitution;it does not expand merely to suit the States’ policy prefer-ences, or to allow State officials to avoid difficult choices regarding the allocation of state funds. By assigning the Federal Government power over “certain enumeratedobjects only,” the Constitution “leaves to the several Statesa residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other ob-jects.” The Federalist No. 39, at 285 (J. Madison). The purpose of this design is to preserve the “balance of power between the States and the Federal Government . . . [that] protect[s] our fundamental liberties.” Garcia v. San Anto-nio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 572 (1985) (Powell, J., dissenting); New York v. United States, 505 U. S., at 181. It is the States’ duty to act as the “im-mediate and visible guardian” of those liberties because federal powers extend no further than those enumerated in the Constitution. The Federalist No. 17, at 169 (A. Hamilton). The Constitution gives States no more powerto decline this responsibility than it gives them to infringe upon those liberties in the first instance. FTC v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 504 U. S. 621, 636 (1992) (“Federalism serves to assign political responsibility, not to obscure it”).
Absent congressional action that is in accordance with,or necessary and proper to, an enumerated power, theduty to protect citizens from violent crime, including actsof sexual violence, belongs solely to the States. Morrison, 529 U. S., at 618 (“[W]e can think of no better example ofthe police power, which the Founders denied the NationalGovernment and reposed in the States, than the suppres-sion of violent crime”); see Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 426 (1821) (Marshall, C. J.) (stating that Congresshas “no general right to punish murder committed within any of the States”).
Not long ago, this Court described the Necessary and Proper Clause as “the last, best hope of those who defend ultra vires congressional action.” Printz, supra, at 923. Regrettably, today’s opinion breathes new life into that Clause, and—the Court’s protestations to the contrarynotwithstanding, see ante, at 18—comes perilously close to transforming the Necessary and Proper Clause into a basis for the federal police power that “we always have rejected,” Lopez, 514 U. S., at 584 (THOMAS, J., concur-ring) (citing Gregory, supra, at 457; Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 196; Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S., at 37). In so doing, the Court endorses the precise abuse of power Article I is designed to prevent—the use of a limited grantof authority as a “pretext . . . for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government.” McCulloch, supra, at 423.
I haven't read the decisions all the way through (and I'm not a lawyer) but it's a little unnerving that Roberts and Alito joined in a decision that expands an unenumerated power, especially looking forward to a fight over the ObamaCare mandate.
Posted by: DrewM at
07:23 AM
| Comments (79)
Post contains 1076 words, total size 7 kb.
Posted by: joncelli at May 17, 2010 07:27 AM (RD7QR)
These 9 people make decisions that deeply affect each and every one of us. We must fight Kagan's nomination.
Posted by: Baboo (from the Jeannie Cartoon) at May 17, 2010 07:27 AM (OZ0pi)
What would Kennedy say about juveniles who rape? For Kennedy, if a juvenile beats a lady to within an inch of her life, he can't get a life sentence, but if he touches her breast and giggles, the keys can be thrown away even beyond any sentence.
It's great having retards on the Court. Just great.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 17, 2010 07:28 AM (Qp4DT)
A sobering thought. But noted legal expert Bill Maher said the court was very "right-wing"...
And Volokh agrees that this decision ..."is a major setback for those seeking to limit the federal government to its constitutionally enumerated powers."
Crap. Chaos is starting to look real good now.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 17, 2010 07:29 AM (9hSKh)
Expanding an unenuerated law sounds like a left-leaning court. And a lot of people seem to think this is a conservative court. I'd have to disagree, especially after the Kelo decision.
One need not be a lawyer to understand the law, just an oracle using whatever smoke it is that they use.
And the virgin.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 17, 2010 07:29 AM (i3AsK)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 17, 2010 07:30 AM (ZESU0)
Posted by: Greg at May 17, 2010 07:32 AM (QkqDN)
A little? Ya think? This is total BS. The Feds can lock up people because they may commit a crime that carries no federal penalty? And 20 states go along with it to save cash? Shame Roberts, Shame.
As to the first decision I agree with Kennedy. It is Cruel and Unusual Punishment to lock these losers up for life and deny them their chance to graduate to actual violent crimes. People should be allowed to live up to their potential. /sarc off
Posted by: Rocks at May 17, 2010 07:33 AM (Q1lie)
I have no bloody idea. Make new federal sentencing guidelines for pedophiles and other sexually dangerous criminals, but don't expand the fed's power even more.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 17, 2010 07:34 AM (9hSKh)
A number of states and the feds have set up a civil confinement system for these pieces of shit.
Even if the end is good, the means (preventative incarceration) is a damn dangerous thing. But, it's passes muster under the "For the children" exemption in the Constitution, so it's ok.
Posted by: DrewM. at May 17, 2010 07:34 AM (9B5OK)
We're getting closer and closer to living in a MINORITY REPORT world.
Remember that movie? Between this and hate crimes...and pretty soon 'thought' crimes like they have in the UK...
Posted by: Baboo (from the Jeannie Cartoon) at May 17, 2010 07:36 AM (OZ0pi)
Posted by: dr kill at May 17, 2010 07:36 AM (w9bVp)
Posted by: joncelli at May 17, 2010 07:36 AM (RD7QR)
The gift of Bush continues to give.
Posted by: Barbarian at May 17, 2010 07:37 AM (EL+OC)
hahaha, Newt 'the whore' Gingrich is on Beck.
funny how Newt always turns into a staunch conservative when he has a new book coming out.
Posted by: Baboo (from the Jeannie Cartoon) at May 17, 2010 07:38 AM (OZ0pi)
hahaha, Newt 'the whore' Gingrich is on Beck.
funny how Newt always turns into a staunch conservative when he has a new book coming out.
Amazing that.
Posted by: Barbarian at May 17, 2010 07:39 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 17, 2010 07:40 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Baboo (from the Jeannie Cartoon) at May 17, 2010 11:39 AM (OZ0pi)
It was made in the comments, here, long before Newtered Gangrenich jumped on the bandwagon.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 17, 2010 07:42 AM (Qp4DT)
No doubt the little bastard will be ready to reenter society after spending a few more years with his fellow criminals. There are only two routes to rehabilitation: through self change, and through death. Few of these clowns ever change of their own accord, at least until they are too damned old to be effective thugs. Once a dirt bag, always a dirt bag. Being a criminal is a choice for most. They prefer to steal other peoples work and possessions rather than fair trade for possessions. At some point, they are just a useless drag on society, and more trouble to keep around than they are worth. They keep them around because they don't want to punish their youth, or because they haven't murdered anyone yet. However, armed robbery proclaims a willingness to murder, if murder is called for. Many gang bangers have killed repeatedly without being caught. How much suffered damage is society's conscious worth? How many innocents should have to suffer and die because society wants to feel merciful?
Posted by: maddogg at May 17, 2010 07:43 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: joncelli at May 17, 2010 11:36 AM (RD7QR)
Nothing, of course. So, the folks who built a neighborhood in a bad part of town (the trash incinerator used to be next door IIRC) got turfed out in order to create a vacant lot.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 17, 2010 07:43 AM (ZESU0)
yeah but Newt has something we don't: a microphone
So I'm grateful he used it to do something useful and speak for the rest of us who don't have the means to get the word out.
Posted by: Baboo (from the Jeannie Cartoon) at May 17, 2010 07:44 AM (OZ0pi)
I think I agree with both rulings, I just don't like the opinions.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 17, 2010 07:44 AM (7VvJB)
Let me get this straight. According to the Supreme Court:
1) A pedophile who has served his sentence can be incarcerated indefinitely.
and
2) A foreign national who is captured on foreign soil shooting at our armed forces can't be incarcerated indefinitely. (without a Habeus petition)
WTF!?!
Posted by: Oschisms at May 17, 2010 07:45 AM (+39HX)
Comstock is a disturbing case. On the one hand, as a person and parent I think it makes a lot of sense. On the other, it essentially creates a category of persons who are always guilty regardless of behavior, making them status offenders. But back on the first hand, sex offenders are almost uniquely likely to reoffend. However, what's to stop this principle from expanding, swallowing the general rule, and allowing all sorts of preventitive detention?
Posted by: Beagle at May 17, 2010 07:45 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 17, 2010 11:35 AM (ZESU0)
Set up a Viagra plant? Nothing? Built a parking lot?
The correct answer is "nothing", IIRC. I think they ended up doing a merger with another company and then used their facility instead of building the planned one in New London.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 17, 2010 07:46 AM (L83zE)
Yeah, but if he or her were restrained enough to only murder said toddler, they are obviously candidates for rehabilitation and release or something.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 17, 2010 07:47 AM (ZESU0)
Posted by: Fritz at May 17, 2010 07:47 AM (GwPRU)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 17, 2010 07:49 AM (ZESU0)
Posted by: Jean at May 17, 2010 07:49 AM (tJF9l)
Posted by: Barack Obama at May 17, 2010 07:50 AM (FkKjr)
Oh yeah, that Kelo decision went a long way towards advancing property rights, didn't it? It was then that I started to question the assumption that this was a onservative court. A true conservative court would've upheld the traditional usage of public domain and restrict its' use to the things that it was traditionally meant for: roads, schools, fire stations, and stuff like that there.
The court did a great disservice to the country by not restricting and narrowly defining the confiscation of land.
Conservative court my ass.
Oh, and putting Kagan on the court is a step in the wrong direction. We're a center-right nation, politically speaking, and anyone on the court who doesn't reflect that simple fact cannot possibly make a good decision that conforms to the Constitutition.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 17, 2010 07:58 AM (i3AsK)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 17, 2010 11:35 AM (ZESU0)
Absolutely nothing. We take the dogs down to Ft. Trumbull for walks and have to drive through there. It is a disgrace. Oh and they are going to close their big world headquarters office there soon also. The same one the City of New London gave them a freaking huge tax break for.
Posted by: Johnnyreb at May 17, 2010 07:58 AM (y67bA)
You know, it seems to me that rather than just invent some constitutionally dubious scheme involving the feds and preventative civil custody and what not, it would be much better to just impose a longer sentence upon conviction.
How long? I don't know, but long enough to make this civil detention by the state and feds unnecessary.
Maybe a sliding scale that keeps you locked up until 70? So a twenty year old gets fifty years, and a 40 year old gets thirty years.
Or if that is somehow unfair, screw it, fifty years across the board.
Posted by: Ed at May 17, 2010 07:59 AM (OCfDT)
The correct answer is "nothing", IIRC. I think they ended up doing a merger with another company and then used their facility instead of building the planned one in New London.
Actually, Pfizer didn't really have any plans for the property. The plans called for a hotel/convention center, condos, a Coast Guard museum and office space. One office building was built and sits empty to this day. The rest of the Fort Trumble neighborhood is a dustbowl. The only residents are herds of feral cats. Ironically, the roads in the old neighborhood are the only ones in New London that aren't riddled with crater sized potholes.
Pfizer built their R&D center in NL a few years back and the Ft. Trumble deal was supposed enhance the development of N.L. Interstingly enough, now that the tax breaks used to lure Pfizer into town are expiring, they've decided to close the facility.
A poster above incorrectly pointed out that there was a trash incinerator in the area. In actuality, it's the sewer treatment plant. It's outdated and is constantly backing up and the stench is unbearable.
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at May 17, 2010 08:01 AM (S3T37)
Here's a contest: Put the letter "C" in comment #36. The winner recieves a free subscription to AoSHQ and the cap from a Valu-Rite bottle.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 17, 2010 08:02 AM (i3AsK)
Hey, all you Kelo experts, whatever happened to that suit where some guy tried to get the property of some of the Supreme Court Justices appropriated via emminent domain?
He wanted to get their house to build a "Lost Liberties" Hotel.
So, uh, what ever happened? I am looking for a place to take a vacation, so if it's available...
Posted by: Ed at May 17, 2010 08:03 AM (OCfDT)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 17, 2010 08:03 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Jean at May 17, 2010 08:04 AM (tTdaQ)
Posted by: Jean at May 17, 2010 08:06 AM (tTdaQ)
This is another example imo, that the country has gone too far around the bend and relegation to the dust heap of great societies may be all that awaits this country, and I'll use Greece as an example. They became so impressed with their enlightenment that they in essence invited their own demise. Our arrogant belief that by our existence we define civilization will ruin us. And this is what this decision epitomizes.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 17, 2010 08:07 AM (RkRxq)
A poster above incorrectly pointed out that there was a trash incinerator in the area. In actuality, it's the sewer treatment plant. It's outdated and is constantly backing up and the stench is unbearable.
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at May 17, 2010 12:01 PM
(S3T37)
My memory is vague, but I think the incinerator was there a long time ago, i.e. the folks who built the neighborhood did so while it was an otherwise shitty place to build one and their reward was an eminent domain grab. And it actually was a viable neighborhood with a lot of folks who had lived there a long time.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 17, 2010 08:08 AM (ZESU0)
The "necessary and proper" clause is nothing more than a diaper used to cover shitty reasoning of liberal idiots on the court. It actually means NOTHING.
It is crap like this that is dooming America in the long run. If we had a proper court FDR would not have got away wiuth his commie shit and neither would have LBJ and OBama.
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2010 08:09 AM (6taRI)
The cases of true sexual predators of minors is a catch 22 because you either need sentences of life or you will have the crime repeated after release. Its a mental disease (evil nature, ed.) that cannot be rehabilitated.
Posted by: polynikes at May 17, 2010 12:04 PM (m2CN7)
I'm not getting the catch 22 reference. And aside from that, you seem to have a valid answer right there: Life imprisonment. What is wrong or unconstitutional about that?
Posted by: Ed at May 17, 2010 08:10 AM (OCfDT)
This was a federal law that congress passed and Bush signed. As Thomas said, the congress has no authority at all in this area.
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2010 08:11 AM (6taRI)
Posted by: Lone Marauder at May 17, 2010 08:13 AM (p1iaB)
You do X and you get 20 years.
So now the big question is who gets to decide how many years is enough for a pedophile?
On another not, why is Megan's law necessary? If they are not fit to be released into the general populace, then up the prison sentence.
Why is it that I have to check the Offenders Database to make sure none of these fuckers have moved next door to me every 4 months?
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at May 17, 2010 08:13 AM (NVFac)
Could be Balrog. I've only lived in the area for 15 years, so that would pre-date my experience.
Anyway, if the New London Development Council wants to have any chance of closing deals down there, the treatment plant needs a full rehab. Last winter the thing backed up and the entire area smelled like shit for over a week.
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at May 17, 2010 08:17 AM (S3T37)
Posted by: Upscale Community Organizing Thought Criminal at May 17, 2010 12:07 PM (IhHdM)
In-state sexual offenses are state issues, not federal. The federal government should have nothing to do with them until they become inter-state affairs, and, even then, should be prosecuted and punished by individual states.
The federal government was never meant to interact with individuals in this way. There were a few exceptions, noted in the Constitution, but beyond that, any problem the federal government has with how states are doing things belong in a suit by the federal government against the particular state, not the federal government just usurping state power. Of course, we've been on this awful road for a long time, now.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 17, 2010 08:18 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 17, 2010 08:18 AM (RkRxq)
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2010 12:09 PM (6taRI)
That a lowlife fuckstick like Harry Reid was able to badmouth Thomas to the gibbering assholes in the MSM with nary a word of dissent shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the fourth estate.
Even though I only quoted the first sentence, I agree with everything in the rest of your comment.
Posted by: Captain Hate at May 17, 2010 08:25 AM (3AE0l)
Posted by: er at May 17, 2010 08:28 AM (dtJc/)
Posted by: nickless at May 17, 2010 08:38 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: er at May 17, 2010 08:40 AM (dtJc/)
They are molesting children. They deserve to be put to death.
Wait--are we talking actual sick scum molesters of tots, or are we discussing the "but Officer, she said she was 18!" saps who get involved with teen Loilitas? The former are sick scum obviously, but the latter situations are decidedly *not* so clear cut, especially nowadays.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 17, 2010 08:42 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: er at May 17, 2010 08:46 AM (dtJc/)
The idea of instituting a federal preventative detention scheme that modifies sentences after the fact, on the other hand, is troubling for genuine civil liberties if the "slippery slope" happens. I think common sense serves as a better brake on slippery slopes than many do, but why can't we just make the laws as strong and sentences as long as they should be in the first place and then stick with them instead ? I don't like modifying punishments after sentencing. I'm all for draconian sentences for child sex offenders (assuming a reasonable standard of proof I'd go for two strikes life sentencing - the system can fuck up once but the odds on twice aren't realistic) - their recidivism rate is near-universal and there doesn't appear to be a "cure." However, it should be voted on by the state and the details should be carefully examined.
Changing sentences after the fact is another example of arbitrary, subjective and wholly results-based justice - a government of men, not laws. We have enough of that already.
Posted by: societyis2blame at May 17, 2010 08:48 AM (7ZyYf)
You mean like writing a racist, tea-bag blog, and posting there.....humm. I think you got something there. Thanks!
Posted by: Prez Barry O at May 17, 2010 09:01 AM (ZO0u/)
I'm all for draconian sentences for child sex offenders (assuming a reasonable standard of proof I'd go for two strikes life sentencing - the system can fuck up once but the odds on twice aren't realistic) - their recidivism rate is near-universal and there doesn't appear to be a "cure."
I'm all for the protection of children as well but you've had delusional nightmares like the Amirault case where an entire family was railroaded by idiot prosecutors (that are now working for the likes of ACORN) who based convictions on horseshit like recovered memory scams despite there being no physical evidence that anything had happened. Despite him doing nothing, because of gutless whores like Martha Coakley, Gerald Amirault still has to wear an ankle bracelet.
So the state laws have already been abused and adding a federal level of dumbfuckery just compounds a potentially bad situation. Your two-strikes life sentencing seems about right.
Posted by: Captain Hate at May 17, 2010 09:06 AM (3AE0l)
a little unnerving that Roberts and Alito joined in a decision that expands an unenumerated power
But not entirely unexpected. Both were installed by Bush. Bush believed in the power and righteousness of DC against the power and righteousness of the states and of individuals. Bush also believed in the government's right to fight precrime.
(What, you think he was just talking about "terrorists"? Papers, please, citizen.)
Posted by: Zimriel at May 17, 2010 09:11 AM (9Sbz+)
I agree!
Posted by: Lawrence Taylor at May 17, 2010 09:13 AM (Oqf7s)
BB's post 36 has a stupid in it.
We're a center-right nation, politically speaking, and anyone on the court who doesn't reflect that simple fact cannot possibly make a good decision that conforms to the Constitutition.
The majority opinion of this country has nothing to do with how the Constitution should be read. The Constitution should be read according to the documents surrounding it, contemporary English civil and criminal codes, and the legal precedents which interpret it.
Otherwise you're just as much a living-constitution believer as the Left.
Posted by: Zimriel at May 17, 2010 09:17 AM (9Sbz+)
33 The other question that immediately springs to mind is, for the purpose of this new standard, how do we define the term "sex offender?"
Male
Posted by: Andrea Dworkin at May 17, 2010 09:18 AM (9Sbz+)
The majority opinion of this country has nothing to do with how the Constitution should be read. The Constitution should be read according to the documents surrounding it, contemporary English civil and criminal codes, and the legal precedents which interpret it.
I think "Center-Right" is a shorthand way of saying precisely that.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 17, 2010 09:22 AM (ujg0T)
Obviously this finding flies in the face of precedent in Haggard vs. Stranger:
which Judge Mama tried.
Posted by: comatus at May 17, 2010 09:58 AM (/VEEI)
75 The fact of the matter is the Supreme Court doesn't protect the Constitution. It does whatever the hell it wants without any oversight whatsoever
Clarence Thomas is the exception.
My point is that if we pack the court with "center right" hacks, we'll get more imperial dictates from the next Bobert O'Leeto McHarvard IV. We've just learnt that the Left was right on those two, that Bush was packing the court according to political concerns. The strict constitutionalists amongst us all got played.
Posted by: Andrea Dworkin at May 17, 2010 10:12 AM (9Sbz+)
@29 and 66 and others who state unequivocaly that sex offenders are guaranteed to re-offend (or words to that effect):
Do you have the data to support this or are you repeating what you've read in MSM reports ? Could the data have been generated to support a legislative agenda like the global-warming crap was ? I can speak w/ some authority that some of the people who get sex-offender lables are not creepy holywood movie type pervs. And the public's hyped-up reaction is unwarranted; but is very effective as a tool for removing constitutional rights w/o arousing public outcry. Yeah...sounds a bit conspiritorial; and we know our govt. doesn't do things like that. Except when they do.
Posted by: Redacted at May 17, 2010 10:57 AM (PPD2g)
So according to Justice Kennedy:
A 16 year old superpredator can kill a 12 year old, and be locked up for life (or, until he escapes, is released due to prison overcrowding, pardoned, paroled, etc) but he cannot be executed, because Justice Kennedy does not believe in the death penalty for criminals under 18.
That same 16 year old superpredator, if he simply rapes the same 12 year old, cuts her wrists and leaves her to die, cannot even be imprisoned for life because according to Justice Kennedy, the criminal, not the victim, deserves a second chance.
Does this make any sense at all?
Posted by: BattleofthePyramids at May 17, 2010 11:02 AM (ehL7+)
This would remove from the President and restore some control back to the States.
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2010 11:24 AM (6taRI)
Posted by: Palerider at May 17, 2010 11:30 AM (dkExz)
Posted by: منتديات at May 19, 2010 06:20 PM (RMzgq)
Posted by: pandora at October 27, 2010 07:55 PM (Qm4Ib)
Posted by: ebridalgowns at July 13, 2011 07:50 PM (etMEb)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2452 seconds, 207 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
what can I say?
Posted by: Baboo (from the Jeannie Cartoon) at May 17, 2010 07:26 AM (OZ0pi)