Monday, May 17, 2010

Forever In Prison

AMENDMENT 7: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT 11: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

When the Supreme Court makes a decision that effects the rights of all citizens and the voice of reason is coming from Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, you know something is seriously wrong.

In what can only be seen as yet another mistake by cowardly judges who are scared of being seen as pro-child molestation, the court passed down a 7-2 decision that says that a person that has been convicted of "sexually violent conduct" can be held past their sentence that was handed down by the court, possibly indefinitely.

I know that a lot of people will latch on to the group of people that the decision targets and applaud the court. But just stop and think about what they are saying. They are saying that a person that has served their time can be held indefinitely for no reason, other than they are deemed 'dangerous'. Who decides what is dangerous behavior? What are the guidelines for how this will be executed?

If you don't think this is a problem, look at the War On Terror™. You have a broad war on some ethereal idea. Then you broaden the definition of what a terrorist is (someone who commits an act of terror) to drug dealers, drug users, and now a 14-year old autistic boy who drew a stick figure of him killing someone.

We all know that the 'slippery-slope' argument is a logical fallacy in the world of logic. However, this is politics we are talking about. Logic doesn't enter into the equation. When this broad, and obviously overreaching, power is given to a small group, it will always be abused and it will always be broadened to the largest group possible.

I have a feeling that those constitutional purists that form the Tea Party will be sure to protest the hell out of this decision. I eagerly await the outrage.

No comments:

Post a Comment