Advertisment:
Welcome, Guest!
with your Anime Forum account or Register (Forgot Password?)

Categories
Thursday, June 27, 2019

USA: No Trial Needed for Lolicon Life Imprisonment
Posted by Daenerys in Industry News May 18, 2010 at 03:22:36 AM

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a law which allows “sexually dangerous” prisoners to be jailed forever without trial does not violate the Constitution.

The case centres on Graydon Comstock, who was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to three years imprisonment. He apparently never actually had sex with any children.

Six days prior to the end of his sentence, the government branded him a “sexually dangerous” paedophile who might reoffend, and denied him release, placing him into indefinite “civil commitment” in a federal prison.

He has since spent nearly three years in prison despite having been convicted of no further crime, and having served his sentence.

Release of such “committed” prisoners is possible only if they are deemed to be no longer dangerous – without a treatment program recognised as being capable of this, their imprisonment effectively becomes indefinite.

The law responsible for extending this practice to the federal level, the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was soon challenged by prisoners now being denied release indefinitely, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.



Supreme Court justices finally ruled 7 to 2 in favour of the law:

“It is necessary and proper for Congress to provide for the civil commitment of dangerous federal prisoners.”
Democrats are delighted by the victory – Obama even recently promoted the lady who argued for indefinite sentences on behalf of the federal government, Elena Kagan, to the Supreme Court herself.

She is on record as having argued that the government should be able to restrict any speech it considers “harmful,” irrespective of the First Amendment

A Democratic senator holds forth in support of the decision:

“The process to enact this law to protect our children from those who would do them harm was difficult. I am heartened to see an overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court uphold this important child protection law.”
Some states already operate similar laws, but this decision ensures the federal government can now freely override sentences throughout the land.

The solicitor general for Kansas, Stephen McAllister, a supporter of the law, suggests that allowing indefinite civil commitment for all kinds of criminals might now be possible:

“Constitutionally, it might be possible. I don’t have a constitutionally limiting line for what kinds of mental disorders might be permissible and what [might] not. If they lead to danger to others, potentially, they could be covered under such a law.”


souce: sankakucomplex

Article Comments
You must be logged in to submit a comment.

Posted by on May 27, 2010 at 05:57:29 PM
@ Lady Gaga: that's why i said that was the only bad thing about it. i did also say that the best solution would be to just kill them and get it over with. then we wouldn't have to worry about them anymore.
Posted by on May 23, 2010 at 02:52:22 PM
She is on record as having argued that the government should be able to restrict any speech it considers “harmful,” irrespective of the First Amendment


...I dont really like the thought of some individuals in a government
deciding what is "harmful" and what isn't all will...Also it lacks explanation what exactly "harmful" would be and for what reason...

Also I'm a little at loss with this article...Did that guy have actual child porn or just drawn pornography that was considered as such by the judges?
Because it's not quite clear...The headline says lolicon but the first paragraph speaks of child porn.
If it was just drawn lolicon, imprisonment is a *very* extreme measure in the first place imho, given that no actual children came to harm at any time and that this person obviously was never found to harrass children in real life...

Posted by Daenerys on May 23, 2010 at 06:17:49 AM
why would you want someone to live in prison for the rest of their lives? that costs taxpayers money.
Posted by on May 19, 2010 at 05:57:55 PM
personally, i think this is a good step. lolicon is gross. of course, the ideal course would be to kill them off, but they'd actually suffer more living in prison for the rest of their lives. the only thing i could think of to argue against this would be that the pedophiles will be living off of our tax dollars.
Posted by on May 19, 2010 at 09:29:07 AM
Politicians can always be counted on to do something stupid, offensive or dangerous to the concept of a free society and then claim it's all for the children.
After all, who would dare imperil the children?
Posted by Daenerys on May 18, 2010 at 04:40:14 AM
I personally think that this is a little extreme.

Advertisment: Advertisment