Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that some sex offenders can be held after their sentences end?

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 2:47 PM on May. 18, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Answers (13)
  • If the person is still a danger, yes. I don't want a dangerous rapist out on the street. If they are convicted of a non-violent sex related crime, then they shouldn't be held, but dangerous... Hell, let them rot.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:51 PM on May. 18, 2010

  • i agree. let em rot

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:11 PM on May. 18, 2010

  • I don't know. I wish that they would keep sex offenders in jail for the duration of their sentences, but they're always being let free to re-offend before their sentence is served.
    The fact that the US Supreme Court's decision to keep "some" sex offenders longer then their sentences is just a way to open the door to keep other's longer then their sentences. I think they chose to start with sex offenders because everyone hates them.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:14 PM on May. 18, 2010

  • YES!

    Answer by RutterMama at 3:23 PM on May. 18, 2010

  • If we're talking about the 18 year old boy that has sex with their 15 or 16 year old girlfriend, and the girl or the parents cry "foul," then NO! However, if we are talking about the grown man who forces himself upon a young child, then I say, they should never be allowed to see the light of day again! In my book, that constitutes a "ONE-strike" rule!!!

    Answer by LoriKeet at 3:25 PM on May. 18, 2010

  • I agree with LoriKeet. It depends on their crime. A teen having sex with another teen? No, they shouldn't have been jailed in the first place.

    A child molester or rapist of any kind? Sure, keep 'em as long as you want! 9 times out of 10, their sentences are ridiculously short. Also, the number of REPEAT sex offenders is staggering.

    Answer by DusterMommy at 3:36 PM on May. 18, 2010

  • It would put teeth into the anti-predator laws that everyone has been passing. Considering the murders of Chelsea King and Amber Dubois here in SoCal, I think it's NEEDED.

    Answer by gdiamante at 3:40 PM on May. 18, 2010

  • I agree with Lori and Duster. Those people should not be allowed out in public again. They have done enough studies by now, and the recidivism rates are astounding.

    Answer by 29again at 3:45 PM on May. 18, 2010

  • No, I do not.

    I don't like these people. I do not condone in any fashion what they have done.

    However their sentancing is their way to make up their debt to society for the crime that they have commited. They are NOT to be held responsible for any crime that they have NOT yet commited. And we cannot convict, hold, or detain someone for something that they 'might' do... no matter how probable that likelihood is. And this doesn't just go for convicted felons, or sex offenders.

    If you feel as if these people should never ever be released (I hear you on that) then that means that you don't feel that their original sentancing was a good enough. You don't feel that 5-10-20 years is long enough to 'pay off' that debt, then fix THAT. But this is increibly unconsitutional, unethical, and immoral. So no. I absolutly do not support the decision, no matter how much I don't want these people walking the streets.

    Answer by ethans_momma06 at 4:04 PM on May. 18, 2010

  • I think they should just make the sentences life sentences and they would not have to worry about it.

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 5:56 PM on May. 18, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.