No civil liberty protection for perverts
October 27, 2005
I guess it’s not surprising that in the Bush era of utter obliteration of the rights of the accused, we get a complete violation of due process and double jeopardy that nobody in power actually opposes.
Case in point: Our butthead Governor George Pataki (who has some delusion that he’s a serious candidate for prez in 2008, which he’ll be about the time I accept Jeezus as my savior) has decided to order some sex offenders to be subject to “civil confinement” after their legally mandated sentences have been completely served, in spite of their having committed no new offenses. They did the crime, they served the sentence, and now the Governor says “sorry, no getting out of prison for you; we’re afraid you’ll do it again.” (Pataki ‘Pushes Envelope’ To Keep Sex Criminals Confined) In the words of his aide, “He has reassessed our abilities under current law and asked the (state) Office of Mental Health and Department of Correctional Services to push the envelope with the application of existing law, knowing that this aggressive interpretation might open us up to lawsuits.” He has thus order state authorities “to begin evaluating every sexually violent predator in state prison before their release to determine if they should be civilly confined.”
And the loyal opposition, which has declined to pass a law explicitly giving him the power to engage in this kind of unconstitutional lawlessness? Shelly Silver, Democratic Assembly Speaker says “We are glad that the administration is finally taking steps to use New York’s existing civil-confinement law as one part of our ongoing effort to protect the public from sex offenses.”
OK, just so I get it: Due process, innocent until proven guilty, and protection from double jeopardy — everybody in the power loop thinks those are optional, to be overridden if we think the people involved are really bad. As I say, just what we should expect in the Bush era of Bush-led erosions of civil liberties.
No Responses to “No civil liberty protection for perverts”
This is nothing new. In fact, many other states have been doing this for years. If memory serves Kansas v. Hendricks is the legal precedent.
By Anonymous on Oct 28, 2005
Kansas is JesusLand. They never accepted civil rights or due process. This is New freakin’ York. But you’re right; something like 13 states now have laws directing such things. Of course, if we had a half-decent Supreme Court, those laws would be tossed.
By ron on Oct 28, 2005