I talked about registries earlier in Constitutionality of Sex Offenders. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled (on Monday) that it is constitutional for sexual offenders who are considered "sexually dangerous" to be held indefinitely beyond their sentence. For More information, read this AP article.At first glance, I couldn't help but think that this is outrageously unconstitutional. One of the tenets of our country is that every criminal sentence must be accompanied with due process (a trial and a judge's decision). I stand by the idealistic belief that this should be unconstitutional, but what about from a realist perspective? Does it make sense to treat "sexual deviants" this way?
Obviously, the biggest inhibiter of a real conversation on this matter is the emotions that run deep within it. There is no politician or judge or person who wants to appear to be "pro-child molester." So, before the next post on what we should practically do about child abusers, I am going to say that I am in no way "pro-molester," I am going to subscribe to a love the sinner hate the sin mentality. Essentially, I try to see beyond one of a person's many actions and to see them as a humasn being like myself. Thus, I am against the term "monster" that is often applied to child molesters.
No comments:
Post a Comment