WTF US Legal System Is A Bloody Joke!

I think it's a bad idea. If people think that if they do their time but still can't get out then you're telling them they must do anything possible to never be arrested. So they will go to farther extremes. They escalate so we escalate and where does it end.
 
This has nothing to do with the states. This is at the federal level. It has to do with people who traffick in children. These are the people who are SUPPOSED to be locked up forever, and now they can be.
 
This has nothing to do with the states. This is at the federal level. It has to do with people who traffick in children. These are the people who are SUPPOSED to be locked up forever, and now they can be.

people trafficking doesn't exist - we've have ridiculous laws in place in the UK for the past 9 years - of those 9 years, 3 people have been brought to court and one conviction.

while trafficking does exist - it certainly doesn't in the UK. at least nowhere near the same extent as we had been beaten across the head with.
 
polo has some asians locked in his bathroom right now waiting to be picked up.

the fact i immediately searched for a new leatherman wave right after making that post will make my internet history all the more suspicious.
 
The "goal" of prison is rehabilitation. If the person isn't rehabilitated... However, I don't like the state making that determination. Or entities of the state.

the goal is failure. our recidivism rates are enormous

Within three years of their release, 67% of former prisoners are rearrested and 52% are re-incarcerated, a recidivism rate that calls into question the effectiveness of America's corrections system, which costs taxpayers $60 billion a year.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933722.html
 
the fact i immediately searched for a new leatherman wave right after making that post will make my internet history all the more suspicious.

I have a Leatherman Skeletool and love it. It's a lot lighter than most of the leatherman so I can carry it as a pocket knife.
 
people trafficking doesn't exist - we've have ridiculous laws in place in the UK for the past 9 years - of those 9 years, 3 people have been brought to court and one conviction.

while trafficking does exist - it certainly doesn't in the UK. at least nowhere near the same extent as we had been beaten across the head with.

Trafficking includes not just the interstate transportation or exploitation of kids for sex crimes, but also the transportation of child pornography. When you cross state lines with either you enter federal jurisdiction. And it happens all the time here. 24 hours a day without relent. I worked on these cases at the U.S. Attorney's Office here in North Texas for two years, being overwhelmed in slow motion. And then I quit, before I ended up looking like Nicholas Cage in Bringing Out the Dead.
 
This has nothing to do with the states. This is at the federal level. It has to do with people who traffick in children. These are the people who are SUPPOSED to be locked up forever, and now they can be.

er...so why aren't they given life sentences to begin with? I think the issue here is that the US authorities are being given the right to overturn the original sentence for somewhat arbitrary reasons.
 
er...so why aren't they given life sentences to begin with? I think the issue here is that the US authorities are being given the right to overturn the original sentence for somewhat arbitrary reasons.

Criminals are sentenced according to legislated maximums for given crimes. Those maximums change from state to state and at the federal level. Some crimes do not provide for life imprisonment. For example, carrying child porn across state lines isn't a federal life offense.

The confinement extensions at issue here are civil in nature, not criminal, which is where the question about consitutionality came in. Civil confinement was introduced as part of the civil commitment portion of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously held that the civil commitment portion of the law exceeds federal authority. The federal government, the court wrote, does not have the power to "regulate all sexual violence, including acts which violate no criminal statute."

The Constitution does not empower the federal government to confine a person solely because of asserted 'sexual dangerousness' when the Government need not allege (let alone prove) that this 'dangerousness' violates any federal law….

Consistent with its role in maintaining a penal system, the federal government possesses broad powers over persons during their prison sentences. But these powers are far removed from the indefinite civil commitment of persons after the expiration of their prison terms, based solely on possible future actions that the federal government lacks power to regulate directly.

Congress’s perceived need for the sort of civil commitment statute at issue here does not create constitutional power where none exists. Congress must instead seek alternative, constitutional means of achieving what may well be commendable objectives.

And this is nothing new. Many states have similar civil confinement laws with regard to sexual predators. Call it "clinical seclusion" or something of that nature if it makes you feel better. Whatever you call it, it is absolutely necessary. People who prey on children cannot be cured.
 
Criminals are sentenced according to legislated maximums for given crimes. Those maximums change from state to state and at the federal level. Some crimes do not provide for life imprisonment. For example, carrying child porn across state lines isn't a federal life offense.

The confinement extensions at issue here are civil in nature, not criminal, which is where the question about consitutionality came in. Civil confinement was introduced as part of the civil commitment portion of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously held that the civil commitment portion of the law exceeds federal authority. The federal government, the court wrote, does not have the power to "regulate all sexual violence, including acts which violate no criminal statute."



And this is nothing new. Many states have similar civil confinement laws with regard to sexual predators. Call it "clinical seclusion" or something of that nature if it makes you feel better. Whatever you call it, it is absolutely necessary. People who prey on children cannot be cured.

Wow thanks, I wasn't expecting such a comprehensive response!

I think I'm in broad agreement that paedophiles/child predators should receive life imprisonment. However it sounds like the US legal system needs to be standardised across states so that the initial sentence reflects that. Otherwise there will be some debate as in this case where it appears as if the initial sentence is overturned by a higher authority and extended (for 'civil' rather than 'criminal' reasons it seems, which to my mind is quite arbitrary, although again I'm not familiar with the US legal system).
 
I believe people that prey on children show signs of a deeper mental illness that is not getting treated at all in regular prisons.

Well, be careful about that. Some people have fetishes and kinks in the most unlikely of things. Some like feet, some like unicorns (no, seriously), some like younger children. These people aren't bad, but some like the unicorn lover have unfulfillable desires. Some, like those that like children, have fulfillable desires but not in a socially acceptable way. Either they can learn to suppress their inherent sexual desires (much like the ineffective ex-gay ministries) or "slip" and act on their desires and risk getting caught.

I do agree some and perhaps most of these people have mental issues, but some are trying to fulfill a sexual desire that is embedded in them despite the laws and morality against it.

Mentally damaged? Not so much. Morally contemptible and dangerous to those that cannot give consent? Absolutely.
 
Trafficking includes not just the interstate transportation or exploitation of kids for sex crimes, but also the transportation of child pornography. When you cross state lines with either you enter federal jurisdiction. And it happens all the time here. 24 hours a day without relent. I worked on these cases at the U.S. Attorney's Office here in North Texas for two years, being overwhelmed in slow motion. And then I quit, before I ended up looking like Nicholas Cage in Bringing Out the Dead.

how can transfer of pornography be trafficking if it's not physical?