The Supreme Court's Decision About Sexually Dangerous Federal Prisoners: Could It Hold the Key to the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance?
By MICHAEL C. DORF
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
...Under a program first adopted in the late 1940s and most recently modified by a 2006 federal law , some prisoners who are otherwise eligible to be released because they have served their sentences may be held–potentially indefinitely–as "sexually dangerous" upon two conditions: First, clear and convincing proof must be presented to a court that, by virtue of a mental disease or defect, the prisoner would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released. Second, it must be the case that neither the state in which the prisoner is confined nor the state in which he was tried (if that is a different state) is willing to accept custody over him...."
I can't help but wonder if they thought of the recent case here of John Gardner. The fucker did 5 years for attacking a 13-year old and was released back into an area very close to me and my daughter was 16 at the time. It is still hard for me to look at a picture of Amber Dubois' mother without crying. Amber was on her way to school to buy a lamb for 4-H when Gardner got her.
No comments:
Post a Comment