On Monday the Supreme Court ruled the federal government has the power to keep some sex offenders behind bars indefinitely after they have served their sentences if officials determine those inmates may prove “sexually dangerous” in the future:
“The federal government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the 7-2 majority.At issue was the constitutionality of federal “civil commitment” for sex offenders who are nearing the end of their confinement or who are considered too mentally incompetent to stand trial.
[ . . . ]In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the federal government overstepped its bounds.
“Congress’ power, however, is fixed by the Constitution,” Thomas wrote. “It does not expand merely to suit the states’ policy preferences, or to allow state officials to avoid difficult choices regarding the allocation of state funds.” He was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.
The government has a moral responsibility to protect its citizens against such habitual offenders. What is less clear, however, is how that duty can be carried out without violating the civil rights of those citizens who also happen to be sex offenders. I’m conflicted and not sure what to think of this ruling. My gut reaction is to keep them locked away. But using this ruling to justify that decision is a setback, as Jonathan Adler notes , “for those seeking to limit the federal government to its constitutionally enumerated powers.”
Do those who support keeping captured terrorists locked away indefinitely feel the same way about sex offenders (and vice versa)?
(Via: Rod Dreher )
