Wrong is wrong

SCOTUS has upheld this Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which is an otherwise well-intentioned law that contains a provision that gives the government the power to detain indefinitely a sex offender after he or she has completed his or her prison sentence. They're calling it "civil commitment." For the record, I believe this is grievous error on our part, one that sticks a big middle finger up at the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments.

If the argument is that they've already been convicted, that is double jeopardy (5th amendment), as their sentence has been completed. If the argument is that they will definitely violate the law again, then you have deprived them of due process (5th amendment), as well as failed to charge them with a crime, or let them face their accuser (6th amendment). If the argument is that it's just an extension of their sentence, it's a violation of the 8th amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, as no current statutes that I'm aware of allow for a detention of an indefinite time.

Our favorite nominee, Elena Kagan, is apparently responsible for this success. My understanding without having read her arguments is that the law is based on necessary and proper clause of Article I of the Constitution, basically that the "civil commitment," is necessary to promote the general welfare.

Now, this is really scary stuff. Considering that a minor could be convicted as a sex offender for sexting, one could literally spend their entire life in jail for one stupid thumbnail-sized peek at their privates.

Even worse is the precedent that is set which could be used for other laws. Late me take it to a theoretical extreme, rather than enumerate increasingly ridiculous scenarios: life in "civil commitment," for jaywalking.

Now, consider we have people in our country fighting to free Guantanamo detainees on the basis that they are indefinitely incarcerated without due process. It's hard to not know about GTMO, we've heard the drumbeat from Day 1 and it continues, even in the face of the executive order Obama made intending to close the program. I didn't know about this "civil commitment," clause nor the Supreme Court hearing until it was all over.

I'll let you draw the parallels and differences yourself. The bottom line is this: if it's wrong for us to detain non-citizen would-be terrorist/combatants during a war, then it's certainly wrong to detain ex-criminals who are citizens.

On a side note, I find it rather annoying that online news organizations - online - on the web - in HTML - in a browser - fail to link to the freely available texts of the applicable laws the stories report on.