This morning I went to the oral argument at the Supreme Court for United States v. Comstock, a potentially important federalism case that we’ve blogged about here before. The issue in the case is whether Congress has the Article I power to set up a system of civil commitment for sex offenders after their federal prison terms are over. The argument transcript is now up here.
Just based on my recollections of the argument, I thought SG Kagan made a much broader Article I power argument at oral argument than was made in the Government’s brief. Indeed, her argument struck me as sort of shockingly broad: She argued that the Constitution gives the federal government the general power “to run a responsible criminal justice system,” and that anything Congress plausibly thought a part of running a “responsible criminal justice system” was within the scope of federal power. Justice Scalia would have none of it, as you might imagine, but I couldn’t tell if he had any other votes.
My guess from the argument is that the Court will uphold the statute on the narrower grounds offered by the Government’s brief. If I had to make a more specific guess on a vote and opinion assignments, I would guess that it ends up being 7-2, with Scalia and Thomas dissenting. And I’ll go out on a limb and say Chief Justice Roberts will assign the majority opinion to Alito or Kennedy. But these are obviously just guesses, which I’ll remind you of if I get it right but forget if I get it wrong.
dcperson says:
apologies if I missed this earlier…but this is civil commitment based solely on the criminal offense, despite the fact that the criminal sentence has been served, no? have there been challenges on other grounds than the current? if you’re going to lock someone away forever based on a criminal act, why not be honest about it and say that the offense merits LWOP (or whatever longer sentence you’re actually imposing)?
Obviously cong’l authority to enact it in the first place is the huge issue…but it seems like the law’s problematic in many respects.
January 12, 2010, 3:55 pmmethodact says:
I remember how the Omnibus Drug Control Act stated that Congress would not admit any evidence but that which held drugs to be bad. That’s the stuff strict liability laws are made from.
A great example of these strict liability laws that the globalist eugenicists foist in order to kill the Internet and subjugate the People can be found here.
The historical comeuppance which redounds from such government crimes against humanity can be found in epic events such as Bastille Day and the Nuremberg Trials.
That requital is only a matter of time, as history has this remarkable habit of repeating itself.
January 12, 2010, 4:24 pmCrazyTrain says:
“I thought SG Kagan made a much broader Commerce Clause argument at oral argument than was made in the Government’s brief.”
You mean Article I argument, right? I thought they didn’t argue the Commerce Clause, but argued other Article I powers — something about being necessary and proper to running a prison system (which something else inherently gives Congress power to do).
[OK Comments: Thanks, corrected.]
January 12, 2010, 5:04 pmOrin Kerr says:
Methodact,
Given that the challenge is only as to which government has the power to enact the statute, and that the statute is politically popular, why is this an example of a law that “subjugates the people” and may lead to another Bastille Day or Nuremberg Trials? I’m afraid you’ve lost me.
January 12, 2010, 5:04 pmjosh says:
dcperson
I can’t speak for the federal law, but about 16 states have similar laws. Kansas was the test case in Hendricks and Crane, where the court held (5-4 in both, I think) that such civil commitment laws do not constitute ex post facto or due process violations because they relate to treatment and not punishment. The ACLU has done a good job litigating the fact that the detention facilities are just former prison facilities and that the “treatment” is nothing more than continued confinement.
It’s a tough nut to crack because its hard to defend the rights of serial rapists, even after they’ve served their full term. But, I think the factual underpinning of the cases are suspect, and, as the American Psychiatric Association filed an amicus brief pointing out that the science just isn’t there to actually meet the burden of proof that someone is substantially likely to reoffend, thus warranting commitment.
I’ve often asked in comments for one of the VC’ers to take up the fundamental (though already decided) issues of civil commitment, but have yet to see a substantive post that I can recall.
Prof. Kerr? I mean, federal powers in Comstock might be interesting, but from a libertarian perspective, isn’t the whole system here more of an interesting issue?
January 12, 2010, 5:22 pmChris Travers says:
I personally think Scalia is right. I further think that providing this sort of power becomes very dangerous in the hands of the federal government. In particular, the simple fact is that this punishes people for being potential criminals, not for actually being criminals.
If the state wants to lock up people for the protection of themselves or others, I see no problem with that. I don’t even see a problem with the federal government paying the bill.
However, I have a very specific question: Is this sort of thing solely the Department of Prisons’ decision? What sort of proper challenges does an individual have when challenging indefinite commitment? What is the rate of which prisoners are successful in their claims?
I ask because my own opinion is that due process issues should turn upon the above questions as well.
January 12, 2010, 5:33 pmChris Travers says:
Another question:
If the standard is “substantially likely to reoffend” why should mental illness be a requirement? Why not just say “well first time internet fraud of this sort is a misdemeanor, but recidivism rates are high, so sorry, life without parole for you?”
January 12, 2010, 5:36 pmCrazyTrain says:
Well, I guess Justice Scalia takes a much different view of the spending clause than do Ilya Somin & Randy Barnett.
JUSTICE SCALIA: The [federal] government can spend money on whatever it wants. That’s the spending power. They can set up hospitals.
Elena Kagan also very directly answered Ilya’s question from a few months back about why she did not raise a commerce clause argument in their brief.
GENERAL KAGAN: Well, as you say, Justice Kennedy, the Government has never argued the Commerce Clause here in the sense that it has never argued that these activities have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and it hasn’t done so because of the Morrison — the Morrison precedent.
January 12, 2010, 5:41 pmAlan says:
Nice to see Scalia on the right side of a Commerce-Clause issue. We haven’t seen that in almost ten years.
Kagan invoked the power to run a responsible criminal-justice system as supporting what Congress here did. I’m sorry, but didn’t Lopez and Morrison hold that the federal government doesn’t have a police power?
I really hope Professor Kerr’s prediction is wrong.
January 12, 2010, 5:43 pmmethodact says:
Professor Kerr,
My study is the war on sex, which also includes nudity as sex in the newer laws around the globe.
I also invest 4 hours a day listening to Alex Jones expound on the globalists and eugenics and how the Big Picture all fits together. The Echelon countries are each controlled by the same globalists.
Tyrannical laws foisted in one, will soon make their way to the others. They use incrementalism and pretexts to foist such laws. This law is one such law which may appear reasonable to you but will be expanded to include the broader population as fast as it can.
It makes a mockery of due process. Yes, there are real psychopaths that get caught and convicted, but my example of the Aussie tyrant shows that such things cannot limit themselves to cases of harm or actual danger but become entire classes of “evil” by mere label. (Just look at the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.)
I even resisted calling for a repeal of the Commerce Clause as the font of all government over-reach. I kept my criticism narrow to this slippery slope.
What are the mentally ill doing in prison anyway?
And to let the BOP make these calls?
According to U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report, “Efforts to Prevent Staff Sexual Abuse of Federal Inmates”, every prison but one had reports of staff sexually abusing inmates.
Of BOP’s own reporting: “BOP’s allegation database, which is maintained by the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), did not always identify the specific prison facility where incidents of sexual abuse and sexual misconduct were alleged to have occurred” and “the BOP has not established effective goals and oversight mechanisms for its sexual abuse prevention program” and “the BOP has established no overall goal for the reduction of sexual abuse, and the BOP does not review the program directly during its periodic reviews of each prison.”
Yet they will somehow effectively evaluate prisoners of the same ilk?
January 12, 2010, 5:56 pmCrazyTrain says:
Alan — You are not understanding the government’s positions at all. It is not saying it has a general police power. It says that as a result of other enumerated powers (eg the commerce clause, the crimes on the high seas clause, etc.), it has the power to define crimes and to define punishment for such crimes and to build jails for the housing of such crimes. Then, the government says it has the power to regulate how people are released after formal punishment, and if the government determines that a convict is sexually dangerous, it can choose not to release them but to further civilly confine them. I see serious due process issues here, but no federalism ones.
Thus, Congress has the express power to define punish piracy and other felonies committed on the high seas. Let’s say Government captures and arrests the pirate, Captain Jack, who as part of his piracy kidnaps minors on the high seas and rapes them. His conduct violates a ton of Congressional criminal statutes. Clearly, Congress has the power to define and punish such crimes (it says so in Article I, s.8 itself). In exercise of its express power to to define such criminals, Congress mandates that Captain Jack gets 10 years in jail. As a necessary and proper exercise of its power to punish Captain Jack, it also has the power to define and regulate how Captain Jack is released from prison at the expiration of his 10 years. Congress can mandate that if Captain Jack (and others like him) are still likely to commit child molesting upon release from prison, the government can choose not to release them but to civilly commit them. I don’t see how this isn’t a pretty easy case (on the federalism issues, not the due process issues).
January 12, 2010, 6:04 pmChris Travers says:
I think I see the subtlety that causes some issues here. I think the federalism and due process issues are tightly bound.
State civil commitment rules derive from common law powers, such as parens patriae which are not generally federal powers. In other words, the state CAN lock someone up to protect that person from himself or others or otherwise abridge normal civil liberties (though I think this is overused and should be scaled back because it means judges deciding whether individuals have a right to make their own medical decisions).
These powers are not generally held by the Federal Government. So civil commitment by a state and by the feds are legally quite different. The state can lock people up for their own good and to protect others from POTENTIALLY dangerous insane people just because that person poses a danger At the same time, the federal government can only do so, as you note, only as a matter of defining crimes which Article 1, section 8 allows them to do.
So at this point the due process issues for a federal commitment of a prisoner become fundamentally different from those by a state. The state can do so because the state acts with paternalistic powers. The federal government can do so only as a matter of punishing crimes.
Therefore what this means is that state laws run into different due process problems than federal laws. This is presumably why the statute requires the federal government to try to arrange state commitment instead.
The question then becomes whether the federal government can then act as a state for purposes of such confinement, or whether it must be included at time of sentencing. If the federal government cannot lock people up in mental hospitals simply because they pose dangers to themselves or others, then why does this change simply because a prisoner is about to be released? Furthermore, if the state, whose responsibility it is to act in this manner, simply refuses to do so, why does the federal government have the power to fill that vacuum?
I.e. is the federal government the parens patriae of the federal prisoner? (I think that is what the “special relationship” discussed in oral argument is designed to determine.)
I hope I am being clear.
January 12, 2010, 6:26 pmCrunchy Frog says:
The federal government has the power to regulate how people are relased after formal punishment of federal crimes. The federalism issue that you are missing is that the federal government wants to commit people covicted of state crimes, in state courts, and incarcerated in state penal systems.
January 12, 2010, 6:30 pmChris Travers says:
Source? I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying that was not the sense I got reading the oral argument.
January 12, 2010, 6:32 pmjosh says:
Chris
Your due process analysis makes sense. But what about ex post facto and double jeopardy It has to be equally unconstitutional for the federal government to impose a second punishment for the same crime after the criminal sentence has been served, no?
January 12, 2010, 6:39 pmChris Travers says:
you are assuming it is punitive. If it is punitive, then I would think those would apply.
If it is not punitive, the question is what power gives them the right to engage in long-term, involuntary protective custody?
January 12, 2010, 6:59 pmShelbyC says:
The argument seems to turn on the fact that the prisoner is in federal custody. What if the guy escapes after serving his sentence?
January 12, 2010, 6:59 pmShelbyC says:
Anybody know if the feds have the power to civily commit folks in national parks or on military bases, where the feds have more of a police power?
January 12, 2010, 7:20 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Oops, my bad.
January 12, 2010, 7:22 pmMichael Ejercito says:
It is important to remember that the internment of Japanese-Americans was upheld against a constitutional challenge.
If the U.S. Constitution did not forbid Executive Order 9066, why would it forbid a similar executive order relocating sex offenders to an internment camp in the Owens Valley?
Read about how the Lautenberg Amendment applies to domestic violence convictions predating the act.
January 12, 2010, 7:27 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Absolutely. Not controversial, so far. But…
I don’t know what “how he is released from prison” means, but assuming there is such a power, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t encompass not releasing him.
Based on what? What constitutional power is there for Congress to civilly commit someone? Can Congress mandate that if Eugene Volokh is likely to commit child molesting, that the federal government can civilly commit him? What distinguishes Eugene from Captain Jack, at the end of Captain Jack’s sentence?
January 12, 2010, 7:42 pmChris Travers says:
Playing devil’s advocate here:
When a person is convicted of a federal crime and is imprisoned, he or she gives up a great deal of liberty and is confined to a federal prison. The prison then takes on responsibilities for caring for the individual including providing food, shelter, medical care, and so forth. In particular, prisons are required to reasonably provide for the safety of their inmates.
The powers that the federal government has over a prisoner is a proper superset of the parens patriae powers that the state has, and which the state may use to civilly convict individuals for their own protection and for the protection of others. A prisoner though is not under the protection of the state, but is under the protection of the federal government.
If we can agree with the above, it would seem to follow that the government could engage in protective custody of a prisoner for a period of time pending the prisoner’s release using powers normally available only to the state via the parens patriae power.
Where does this lead though? If a state releases a prisoner who fears for his life if released, and who is subsequently murdered, does that mean the state has a duty not to release such a prisoner? Should prisoners be able to request that they not be released at all but be committed instead?
January 12, 2010, 8:02 pmAlan says:
So I guess you think Professor Somin doesn’t understand the government’s positions at all, too, since he seems to agree with me (http://volokh.com/2010/01/12/assessing-the-comstock-oral-argument)? Maybe you’re the one who doesn’t understand. The government obviously thinks that the enumerated powers plus the necessary-and-proper power equal something so broad that it is not different from a police power in any meaningful way. Just because they’re not saying “We rely on the Police Power Clause of the Constitution” doesn’t mean they’re not arguing in essence that they have a police power.
January 12, 2010, 8:17 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Oral Argument in United States v. Comstock -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Oral Argument in United States v. Comstock: This morning I went to the oral argument at the Supreme Court for U.. http://bit.ly/5OcOp6 [...]
January 12, 2010, 8:45 pmAllan says:
I am bothered by the slippery slope argument.
What if someone is imprisoned for possession of drugs, but does not have a violent history. In jail, the person shows a propensity to become more and more violent, but does not act on it (because he wants to get out). The government believes that the person will commit more crimes upon release. Can the government retain custody?
What if the government gets a terrorism conviction and feels that the person will again commit terrorist acts upon release? (Guantanomo Bay anyone?)
I think this is a big problem.
January 13, 2010, 9:58 amDr Nigel Leigh Oldfield says:
Paraphrasing Dr Thomas Szasz:
“An action can never be a mental disease/disorder.”
If the shysters want to lock people away for no good reason, they could, at least, have the integrity not to hide behind pseudo-science.
NLO
January 13, 2010, 11:51 amdcperson says:
josh – thanks for tackling the substantive stuff (and other people who have hit on it).
I remembered an earlier case from the midwest, but couldn’t remember what it was (just that I disagreed with the analysis). Calling this civil commitment not punishment is hogwash.
January 13, 2010, 3:57 pmChris Travers says:
This can be differentiated, however. One can argue that the federal government has a limited police power in furtherance of other Article 1 mandates. However, this strikes me as somewhat limited regarding this argument.
The problem, if we hold that to be the case, is that the article 1 powers don’t provide any general mandate to address violent crime with a few exceptions not really relevant to this case. I think a close reading of the case suggests a slightly different approach.
I think the government’s position is that they have substantially increased common law powers, including general police power and parens patriae over individuals who are incarcerated due to having committed federal crimes. I think this is the “special relationship” which is discussed a fair bit in oral argument. If this is the case, then it is an easy win for the government but on rather narrow grounds (i.e. the federal government acts as a state for the purpose of caring for federal prisoners and this effectively terminates at the time the prisoner is released from custody).
The problem with this though is that it may provide limits on the conditional release sections of the same law. For example, if this is limited to a special relationship which allows for the federal government to utilize powers normally reserved for the states, than once an individual is released (conditionally or not) the federal government really shouldn’t have continued parens patriae power among others.
January 13, 2010, 4:55 pmChris Travers says:
Moreover, what does this mean for the conditional release portions of the law?
January 13, 2010, 5:01 pmAlan says:
If civil commitment is jurisdictionally hooked to the fact that these people have committed crimes, doesn’t that make civil commitment a second punishment–and thus barred by the double-jeopardy doctrine?
January 14, 2010, 8:50 amMichael Ejercito says:
No more so than the Lautenberg Amendment.
January 14, 2010, 10:13 amAlan says:
If it’s not a second punishment, then it’s basically serving the same function as civil commitment in state proceedings, or sex-offender registration in state proceedings. That purpose is not to punish the offender but to protect society–and that is quintessentially the police power, and thus beyond the scope of the federal government’s authority.
January 14, 2010, 10:55 amMichael Ejercito says:
The federal government has some police powers.
Policing people convicted of federal crimes is one.
January 14, 2010, 12:02 pmAlan says:
The federal government has the power to pass certain criminal statutes in furtherance of enumerated federal powers. Punishing people for violating those statutes would (or might) be a legitimate act in furtherance of an enumerated federal power (depending on what are the enumerated power and the act being punished).
For the federal government to do something that is NOT punishment is entirely different. The objective at that point, when it’s no longer punishment, is much broader than furthering the enumerated power. The objective at that point is to ensure public safety. That’s THE police power, not “some” limited mini-police power.
Nobody could possibly think that the purpose of civil commitment is to protect interstate commerce, or to bolster existing regulations of interstate commerce, or anything enumerated in the Constitution. Everyone knows that its purpose is to protect the public. That objective is nowhere to be found among Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution, or anywhere else.
January 14, 2010, 12:49 pmChris Travers says:
Well, herein lies the problem….
It isn’t necessarily hooked on the fact that these people have committed crimes. as an abstract basis. It could be hooked on the fact that, having committed crimes, they now have their day-to-day needs provided for by the federal government.
I think that is the “special relationship” discussed at oral argument.
But this creates some issues. If an inmate states that he/she WILL commit suicide if released, and if these common-law powers are provided relative to federal prisoners, then does this mean that even in the absence of a statute authorizing it, that the Bureau of Prisons could civilly commit the individual?
January 14, 2010, 4:58 pmML says:
Is anyone else disturbed by the concept that post-sentence incarceration is not considered punitive? Is there any doubt that they are being punished? Not only that, but persons under this statute are punished for acts that they have not committed.
As Justice Sotomayor points out, it is doubtful that the federal government could lock up all violently dangerous persons based on the theory that they might commit a violent crime in the future. General Kagan’s arguments echoed those made by totalitarian governments; thoughts of sexual violence are not only disapproved, they can result in indefinite, “non-punitive” incarceration. Call me old fashioned, but I think we should be punishing past criminal acts, not one’s propensity for criminality.
Also, states must be somewhat conflicted; while the federal government picks up the tab, they now share involuntary commitment powers that were traditionally reserved for the states. Is the loss of sovereignty worth it?
January 16, 2010, 8:50 amMichael Ejercito says:
The feds would be exercising involuntary commitment powers over people convicted of federal crimes.
January 16, 2010, 1:10 pmuhclem says:
Right now the governments (state and federal) in the USA, are imprisoning people who have been convicted or plead to crimes that scare civilized people.
We all hate child molesters and so government is serving us by passing these decidedly unconstitutional statutes which lock people up for life, and you people are actually debating the fine points of the law!
Hey, they don’t have this right!
To hell with the commerce clause or any other legal mumbo-jumbo. The founders were really clear on the purpose of this Constitution. It creates a management company that is subservient to the state-level management companies, who are subservient to the people.
I don’t want to be “served’ in this manner!
It is time to abolish this government. Alterations have not worked.
Today they’ll lock up sex offenders, tomorrow they’ll lock up pot smokers and jay walkers, and YOU.
It’s time.
January 18, 2010, 4:29 amhttp://www.givemeliberty.org
David Eisenberg says:
Constitutional law has become a game where “a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse,” to quote Lincoln. Perhaps this will always be true of any human endeavor.
Indeed, with federalism now expanded to mean something far beyond what even a founding era Federalist would have considered constitutional, and the commerce clause expanding federal power to a near unlimited degree, have we also come to the point where a federal government controlling the manner of a prisoner’s “release” means that it can control people ever after their lawful imprisonment, based on prior crimes? Should we now also write out the ex post facto clause and double jeopardy as we have the contract clause and privileges and immunities?
Civil commitment powers are among the most frightening powers that any government can use and must be restricted as far as we can, if we must suffer them at all. They do not so much lead to totalitarianism as it is an expression of existing totalitarianism, of which even a democracy is quite capable.
I recommend Learned Hand’s explanation of liberty to you all. It is worth it.
January 18, 2010, 10:23 amMichael Ejercito says:
Yeah, it is not like anything that Phillip Garrido did, or is acvcused of doing, was wrong , right?
January 18, 2010, 11:39 amMichael Ejercito says:
Yeah, it is not as if anything Philip Garrido did, or is accused of doing, was wrong , right?
January 18, 2010, 11:42 amuhclem says:
So wait. Since one registered sex offender did something horrible, therefore we all have to give up our God given rights??
You’re a male right? You have a penis? You should be locked up for life! You have the Deadly Weapon required to rape and therefore since you might, we can’t trust you to govern yourself.
Hell man, just because Garrido did a terrible thing does not follow that anyone ever convicted or who plead to a sex offense will do a similar terrible thing. It’s faulty logic at best.
People like you will happily give up your rights for a promise of safety and I have no problem with you losing your liberties, but leave me and mine alone!
January 18, 2010, 1:02 pmGradual Spread of Totalitarianism in the US « Cynical Synapse says:
[...] bigger issue here is the Adam Walsh Act which is under consideration by the US Supreme Court. In essence, the act permits the Federal government to civily commit those it believes need to be [...]
February 15, 2010, 9:23 pmUrso says:
Pretty good guess, all things considered.
May 19, 2010, 12:46 pmNot Me says:
In spite of the S.C. decisions and everyone’s great legal debates here, these people, incarcerated convicted sex offenders made contracts with the state or fed. They were either found guilty or plead to some crime and were given a sentence to serve.
IDK about a conviction, but a plea deal is a contract, and if a person accepts a plea deal and the state reneges, and the USSC upholds for the state, we’re all screwed because the feds have said contracts that THEY themselves write and sign are no longer valid and there’s nothing anyone can do about it!
May 20, 2010, 12:49 amDue Process in Jeopardy | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty says:
[...] Supreme Court. She is almost certain to assume that seat. Orin Kerr, who attended the proceedings, reported at the Volokh Conspiracy website, “Kagan made a much broader Article I power argument at oral [...]
May 24, 2010, 12:02 amDue Process in Jeopardy | Tenth Amendment Center says:
[...] the Supreme Court. She is almost certain to be confirmed. Orin Kerr, who attended the proceedings, reported at the Volokh Conspiracy website, “Kagan made a much broader Article I power argument at oral [...]
May 26, 2010, 3:58 amMilitant Libertarian » Due Process in Jeopardy says:
[...] the Supreme Court. She is almost certain to be confirmed. Orin Kerr, who attended the proceedings, reported at the Volokh Conspiracy website, “Kagan made a much broader Article I power argument at oral [...]
May 26, 2010, 9:18 pmFreeWestRadio.com » Blog Archive » Due Process in Jeopardy says:
[...] the Supreme Court. She is almost certain to be confirmed. Orin Kerr, who attended the proceedings, reported at the Volokh Conspiracy website, “Kagan made a much broader Article I power argument at oral [...]
May 28, 2010, 4:30 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Garrido lost his rights when he was convicted of rape back in the 1970′s.
Rebuild Manzanar.
Intern all domestic violence offenders and sex offenders there.
Being outlaws, they have no rights that we are bound to respect, for they are nithings, enemies of humanity.
July 14, 2010, 11:17 pmuhclem says:
One loses “all” ones rights upon a conviction? Really??
And you want now to intern[sic] all “violent” offenders? Have you ever read Adam Walsh? Do you know that it took whole classes of heretofore non-violent offenders and magically with the stroke of a pen, decided these people were “violent” based on arbitrary criteria such as if the crime plead to had the word “aggravated” in it? Do you know that if a 16 year old has oral sex with a 13 year old, the 16 is automatically a violent offender even if no coercion was used? And that this 16 year old will have to register every quarter year for life? And you want to lock her in some gulag?
What if all “violent” sex offenders and ex-cons reading your words decided take them to heart and act as if “they have no rights that we are bound to respect, for they are nithings, enemies of humanity?”
July 15, 2010, 1:33 amMichael Ejercito says:
They already did so when they committed sex offenses.
July 15, 2010, 11:02 amuhclem says:
And they were already punished.
You’re suggesting ex post facto punishments. And my whole point is if you ask government to violate the inalienable rights (those God-given rights all humans have) of these former offenders, you give tacit agreement for YOUR rights to be taken away too.
July 15, 2010, 1:01 pm