The Supreme Court today held as constitutional in U.S. v Comstock a law allowing federal officials to indefinitely hold inmates who are sexually dangerous in a 7-2 judgment, handing a victory to the government in a case that was argued by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.* The dissenting opinion, interestingly penned by Justice Thomas and uninterestingly joined by Justice Scalia, centered on the idea that the Constitution does not expressly vest in Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime. Though such an argument fits nicely with their strict constructionist credentials, it is nonetheless at odds with the public's perception that the respective dissenters are nothing more than Republican lackeys.
Taken to its logical end, it is possible that the ruling could leave the door open to a lifetime behind bars for sex offenders. Going back to first year criminal law brings back flashes of deterrent v. punishment debates and the possible arguments for and against such penalties for inmates in this situation. However, for those who commit such crimes, it may be true that no deterrent could ever be strong enough to curtail their actions, nor any rehabilitation effort effective enough to prevent them in the future. If this prevailing thought process is true, it might be that the holding of the Supreme Court, though perhaps controversial, is the best way to keep the population safe.
*Her involvement, however, does not provide any new partisan-important insights for purposes of 'Kagan Watch '10' as the law, originally signed by President Bush, has since been invoked by the Obama administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment